+Članak 80. Postupak koji se primjenjuje na UI sustave koje je dobavljač u skladu s Prilogom III. klasificirao kao UI sustave koji nisu visokorizični
---+Članak 80. 1.
---+Članak 80. 2.
---+Članak 80. 3.
---+Članak 80. 4.
---+Članak 80. 5.
---+Članak 80. 6.
---+Članak 80. 7.
---+Članak 80. 8.
|
Članak 80. Postupak koji se primjenjuje na UI sustave koje je dobavljač u skladu s Prilogom III. klasificirao kao UI sustave koji nisu visokorizični
-
1. Pregled
| Naslov |
Regulativa |
|
Članak 80. 1.
|
Ako tijelo za nadzor tržišta ima dovoljno razloga smatrati da UI sustav koji je dobavljač u skladu s člankom 6. stavkom 3. klasificirao kao UI sustav koji nije visokorizičan zapravo jest visokorizičan, ono provodi evaluaciju dotičnog UI sustava u vezi s njegovom klasifikacijom kao visokorizičnim UI sustavom na temelju uvjeta utvrđenih u članku 6. stavku 3. i smjernica Komisije.
|
|
Članak 80. 2.
|
Ako tijekom te evaluacije tijelo za nadzor tržišta utvrdi da je dotični UI sustav visokorizičan, ono od relevantnog dobavljača bez nepotrebne odgode zahtijeva da poduzme sve potrebne mjere kako bi UI sustav uskladio sa zahtjevima i obvezama utvrđenima u ovoj Uredbi te da u roku koji može propisati tijelo za nadzor tržišta poduzme odgovarajuće korektivne mjere.
|
|
Članak 80. 3.
|
Ako tijelo za nadzor tržišta smatra da korištenje dotičnog UI sustava nije ograničeno samo na njegovo državno područje, ono bez nepotrebne odgode Komisiju i druge države članice obavješćuje o rezultatima evaluacije i mjerama za koje je zatražilo da ih dobavljač poduzme.
|
|
Članak 80. 4.
|
Dobavljač osigurava da se poduzmu sve potrebne mjere kako bi se UI sustav uskladio sa zahtjevima i obvezama utvrđenima u ovoj Uredbi. Ako dobavljač dotičnog UI sustava u roku iz stavka 2. ovog članka ne uskladi taj UI sustav s navedenim zahtjevima i obvezama, izriču mu se novčane kazne u skladu s člankom 99.
|
|
Članak 80. 5.
|
Dobavljač osigurava da se poduzmu sve odgovarajuće korektivne mjere u pogledu svih dotičnih UI sustava koje je stavio na raspolaganje na tržištu Unije.
|
|
Članak 80. 6.
|
Ako dobavljač dotičnog UI sustava u roku iz stavka 2. ovog članka ne poduzme odgovarajuće korektivne mjere, primjenjuje se članak 79. stavci od 5. do 9.
|
|
Članak 80. 7.
|
Ako tijekom evaluacije na temelju stavka 1. ovog članka tijelo za nadzor tržišta utvrdi da je dobavljač pogrešno klasificirao UI sustav kao UI sustav koji nije visokorizičan kako bi izbjegao primjenu zahtjevâ iz poglavlja III. odjeljka 2., dobavljaču se izriču novčane kazne u skladu s člankom 99.
|
|
Članak 80. 8.
|
Pri izvršavanju svojih ovlasti za praćenje primjene ovog članka, a u skladu s člankom 11. Uredbe (EU) 2019/1020, tijela za nadzor tržišta mogu provoditi odgovarajuće provjere, posebno uzimajući u obzir informacije pohranjene u bazi podataka EU-a iz članka 71. ove Uredbe.
|
,
1.1 Reference
1.2 Utvrđeni zahtjevi
1.3 Povezani standardi
2. Utvrđeni zahtjevi
3. Povezani standardi
Standardi
| Izvor |
Zahtjev |
|
SCF
|
Non-Conformity Corrective Action
Description
Mechanisms exist to implement corrective action to remediate instances of non-conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual compliance obligations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Corrective action log (spreadsheet)
∙ Documented remediation plans for audit findings
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Corrective action register with remediation tracking
∙ Management review of open findings
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal corrective action plan process
∙ GRC platform for finding tracking and remediation
∙ Management review of open findings
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise corrective action management program
∙ GRC platform with workflow-driven remediation tracking
∙ Executive reporting on open findings
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise GRC platform for corrective action management
∙ Automated finding tracking and escalation workflows
∙ Board-level reporting on material findings
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Compliance (CPL) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CPL domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Compliance management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Compliance efforts are narrowly-limited to certain compliance requirements.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to govern statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Compliance (CPL) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
Level 3 Well Defined
Compliance (CPL) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to take corrective action to remediate instances of non-conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual compliance obligations.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
SCF
|
Non-Conformity Corrective Action
Description
Mechanisms exist to implement corrective action to remediate instances of non-conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual compliance obligations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Corrective action log (spreadsheet)
∙ Documented remediation plans for audit findings
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Corrective action register with remediation tracking
∙ Management review of open findings
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal corrective action plan process
∙ GRC platform for finding tracking and remediation
∙ Management review of open findings
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise corrective action management program
∙ GRC platform with workflow-driven remediation tracking
∙ Executive reporting on open findings
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise GRC platform for corrective action management
∙ Automated finding tracking and escalation workflows
∙ Board-level reporting on material findings
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Compliance (CPL) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with CPL domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Compliance management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Compliance efforts are narrowly-limited to certain compliance requirements.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to govern statutory, regulatory and contractual compliance obligations.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Compliance (CPL) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
Level 3 Well Defined
Compliance (CPL) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to take corrective action to remediate instances of non-conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory, and/or contractual compliance obligations.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|