+Artikel 18 Gemachtigde vertegenwoordigers
---+Artikel 18 1.
---+Artikel 18 2.
---+Artikel 18 3.

Artikel 18 Gemachtigde vertegenwoordigers

-

1. Overzicht

,
Artikel 18 1.
Een fabrikant kan door middel van een schriftelijk mandaat een gemachtigde vertegenwoordiger aanwijzen.
Artikel 18 2.
De verplichtingen uit hoofde van artikel 13, leden 1 tot en met 11, artikel 13, lid 12, eerste alinea, en artikel 13, lid 14, maken geen deel uit van het mandaat van de gemachtigde vertegenwoordiger.
Artikel 18 3.

Een gemachtigde vertegenwoordiger voert de taken uit die gespecificeerd zijn in het mandaat dat hij van de fabrikant heeft ontvangen. De gemachtigde vertegenwoordiger legt op verzoek een kopie van het mandaat over aan de markttoezichtautoriteiten. Het mandaat stelt de gemachtigde vertegenwoordiger in staat ten minste het volgende te doen:

a) 

hij houdt de EU-conformiteitsverklaring als bedoeld in artikel 28 en de technische documentatie als bedoeld in artikel 31 gedurende een periode van ten minste tien jaar nadat het product met digitale elementen in de handel is gebracht of gedurende de ondersteuningsperiode indien die langer is, ter beschikking van de markttoezichtautoriteiten;

b) 

hij verstrekt een markttoezichtautoriteit, wanneer die autoriteit daartoe een met redenen omkleed verzoek indient, alle benodigde informatie en documentatie om de conformiteit van het product met digitale elementen aan te tonen;

c) 

hij verleent op verzoek van de markttoezichtautoriteiten medewerking aan alle genomen maatregelen om de risico’s van een product met digitale elementen die onder het mandaat van de gemachtigde vertegenwoordiger vallen, weg te nemen.

1.1 Referenties

1.2 Geïdentificeerde eisen

1.3 Gerelateerde standaarden

2. Geïdentificeerde eisen

Eisen

3. Gerelateerde standaarden

Standaarden
SCF Designated Certifying Official

Description

Mechanisms exist to designate an individual with the authority to make statements of conformity on behalf of the organization.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Document applicable regulatory requirements in a checklist

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ Compliance checklist
∙ Annual compliance review

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ Compliance management program
∙ Regulatory mapping
∙ Compliance calendar

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Compliance team

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
∙ Dedicated compliance team
∙ Automated compliance monitoring

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

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 Planned Tracked

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

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 designate an individual the authority to make statements of conformity on behalf of the organization.

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.