Home

Iregelverket

Iregelverket is a term used in Norwegian governance to describe a regulatory framework for information handling and digital administration. It refers to a set of rules, standards, and guidelines intended to ensure that organizations manage information in a secure, lawful, and efficient manner.

Scope and aims: The framework applies to public sector bodies and often to private actors that perform

Key components: Core elements typically include data protection and privacy in line with applicable law, security

Governance and implementation: Responsibility for the Iregelverket is usually vested in a central or supervisory authority,

Relation to other laws: The framework is designed to complement and align with broader legal regimes, notably

History and reception: The concept gained prominence with the rise of e-government initiatives and GDPR-era compliance.

See also: General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), information governance, records management.

public
tasks
or
handle
sensitive
information.
It
covers
data
protection,
information
security,
records
management,
archiving,
accessibility,
and
interoperability
across
information
systems.
The
aim
is
to
create
consistent
practices
for
how
information
is
created,
stored,
accessed,
shared,
and
disposed
of.
controls
such
as
risk
assessments
and
access
management,
and
technical
measures
like
encryption
where
appropriate.
It
also
encompasses
data
governance
roles
(for
example,
responsibility
of
data
controllers
and,
where
applicable,
data
protection
officers),
lifecycle
management
with
retention
schedules,
incident
reporting
and
breach
notification,
and
mechanisms
for
audits,
monitoring,
and
accountability.
with
sector-specific
guidelines
issued
to
address
different
contexts.
Adoption
occurs
through
organizational
policies,
system
configurations,
staff
training,
and
supplier
contracts
to
ensure
compliance
across
processes
and
technologies.
data
protection
regulations,
privacy
and
archiving
laws,
and
information-technology
procurement
standards.
Proponents
view
it
as
promoting
uniform
practices
and
accountability,
while
critics
point
to
administrative
burden
and
resource
requirements
for
smaller
organizations.