+Člen 79 Nacionalni postopek za obravnavo sistemov UI, ki predstavljajo tveganje
---+Člen 79 1.
---+Člen 79 2.
---+Člen 79 3.
---+Člen 79 4.
---+Člen 79 5.
---+Člen 79 6.
---+Člen 79 7.
---+Člen 79 8.
---+Člen 79 9.

Člen 79 Nacionalni postopek za obravnavo sistemov UI, ki predstavljajo tveganje

-

1. Pregled

,
Člen 79 1.
Sistemi UI, ki predstavljajo tveganje, se štejejo za „proizvod, ki predstavlja tveganje“, kot je opredeljen v členu 3, točka 19, Uredbe (EU) 2019/1020, če predstavljajo tveganje za zdravje, varnost ali temeljne pravice oseb.
Člen 79 2.
Kadar ima organ za nadzor trga države članice zadosten razlog za domnevo, da sistem UI predstavlja tveganje iz odstavka 1 tega člena, izvede ocenjevanje skladnosti zadevnega sistema UI z vsemi zahtevami in obveznostmi iz te uredbe. Posebno pozornost nameni sistemom UI, ki predstavljajo tveganje za ranljive skupine. Kadar so ugotovljena tveganja za temeljne pravice, organ za nadzor trga obvesti tudi ustrezne nacionalne javne organe ali telesa iz člena 77(1) in z njimi polno sodeluje. Zadevni operaterji po potrebi sodelujejo z organom za nadzor trga in drugimi nacionalnimi javnimi organi ali telesi iz člena 77(1).

Kadar organ za nadzor trga sam ali, kadar je ustrezno, v sodelovanju z nacionalnim javnim organom iz člena 77(1) med navedenim ocenjevanjem ugotovi, da sistem UI ni skladen z zahtevami in obveznostmi iz te uredbe, od zadevnega operaterja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja zahteva, da sprejme vse ustrezne ►C1  korektivne ukrepe ◄ , da zagotovi skladnost sistema UI, ga umakne s trga ali odpokliče v roku, ki ga lahko določi organ za nadzor trga, v vsakem primeru pa najpozneje v 15 delovnih dneh ali kot je določeno v ustrezni harmonizacijski zakonodaji Unije.

Organ za nadzor trga o tem obvesti zadevni priglašeni organ. Za ukrepe iz drugega pododstavka tega odstavka se uporablja člen 18 Uredbe (EU) 2019/1020.
Člen 79 3.
Kadar organ za nadzor trga meni, da neskladnost ni omejena na njegovo nacionalno ozemlje, Komisijo in druge države članice brez nepotrebnega odlašanja obvesti o rezultatih ocenjevanja in ukrepih, ki jih je zahteval od operaterja.
Člen 79 4.
Operater zagotovi sprejetje vseh ustreznih ►C1  korektivnih ukrepov ◄ glede vseh zadevnih sistemov UI, katerih dostopnost je omogočil na trgu Unije.
Člen 79 5.
Kadar operater sistema UI ne sprejme ustreznih ►C1  korektivnih ukrepov ◄ v roku iz odstavka 2, organ za nadzor trga sprejme vse ustrezne začasne ukrepe za prepoved ali omejitev dostopnosti sistema UI na svojem nacionalnem trgu ali njegovega dajanja v uporabo, za umik proizvoda ali samostojnega sistema UI z navedenega trga ali za njegov odpoklic. Zadevni organ brez nepotrebnega odlašanja uradno obvesti Komisijo in druge države članice o teh ukrepih.
Člen 79 6.

Uradno obvestilo iz odstavka 5 vsebuje vse razpoložljive podrobnosti, zlasti informacije, potrebne za identifikacijo neskladnega sistema UI, poreklo sistema UI in dobavno verigo, naravo domnevne neskladnosti in tveganja, naravo in trajanje sprejetih nacionalnih ukrepov ter argumente zadevnega operaterja. Organi za nadzor trga zlasti navedejo, ali je neskladnost posledica enega ali več naslednjih elementov:

(a) 

neupoštevanja prepovedi praks UI iz člena 5;

(b) 

neizpolnjevanja zahtev iz poglavja III, oddelek 2, s strani visokotveganega sistema UI;

(c) 

pomanjkljivosti harmoniziranih standardov ali skupnih specifikacij iz členov 40 in 41, na katerih temelji domneva o skladnosti;

(d) 

neskladnosti s členom 50.
Člen 79 7.
Organi za nadzor trga, ki niso organi za nadzor trga države članice, ki je začela postopek, brez nepotrebnega odlašanja obvestijo Komisijo in druge države članice o vseh sprejetih ukrepih in vseh dodatnih informacijah, ki so jim na voljo v zvezi z neskladnostjo zadevnega sistema UI, v primeru nestrinjanja s priglašenim nacionalnim ukrepom pa tudi o svojih ugovorih.
Člen 79 8.
Kadar organ za nadzor trga države članice ali Komisija v treh mesecih po prejemu uradnega obvestila iz odstavka 5 ne poda ugovora glede začasnega ukrepa, ki ga je sprejel organ za nadzor trga druge države članice, se šteje, da je ukrep upravičen. To ne posega v postopkovne pravice zadevnega operaterja v skladu s členom 18 Uredbe (EU) 2019/1020. Trimesečno obdobje iz tega odstavka se skrajša na 30 dni v primeru neupoštevanja prepovedi praks UI iz člena 5 te uredbe.
Člen 79 9.
Organi za nadzor trga zagotovijo, da so ustrezni omejevalni ukrepi v zvezi z zadevnim proizvodom ali sistemom UI, kot je umik proizvoda ali sistema UI s trga, sprejeti brez nepotrebnega odlašanja.

1.1 Sklici

1.2 Ugotovljene zahteve

1.3 Povezani standardi

2. Ugotovljene zahteve

Zahteve

3. Povezani standardi

Standardi
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.