Commissioner (Cyprus) - 11.17.001.009.077: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 12:06, 3 April 2024

Commissioner - 11.17.001.009.077

Authority:	Commissioner (Cyprus)
Jurisdiction:	Cyprus
Relevant Law:	Article 4(2) GDPR Article 5(1)(a) GDPR
Type:	Complaint
Outcome:	Upheld
Started:	28.04.2021
Decided:	21.12.2023
Published:
Fine:	1,500 EUR
Parties:	n/a
National Case Number/Name:	11.17.001.009.077
European Case Law Identifier:	n/a
Appeal:	Unknown
Original Language(s):	Greek
Original Source:	Office of the Commissioner for Personal Data Protection (in EL)
Initial Contributor:	im

The DPA fined a doctor €1,500 for unauthorized access to a data subject’s medical records and for failing to explain her legal basis.

English Summary

Facts

The data subject filed a complaint with the DPA for an unauthorized access to her personal data through a General Health System (‘GHS’) portal. The data subject provided a screenshot of a notification showing that on 9 March 2021 a doctor specialised in endocrinology, the controller, accessed their medical records without any referral in force. The notification stated that the data subject provided consent for the access to her records. ´However, the doctor never examined the data subject.

The doctor ('controller') replied to the complaint claiming that they did not visit the GHS portal concerning the data subject. As she did not know the data subject, she stated that it was impossible for her to know their personal data such as name, date of birth and ID number needed to access their records. She indicated a possible mistake in entering details in the portal while trying to locate another patient, however, no processing of the patient’s data took place. Further, she stated that there was no malicious intent on her part and she was continued being guided by medical confidentiality.

Holding

The DPA took into the consideration the important element that both data subject and the controller did not know each other and that the controller never examined the data subject.

The DPA specified that the possession of the data as well as the access to the patient’s file constitute acts of processing under Article 4(2) GDPR. For that reason, the controller had to prove how the data subject’s personal data such as name, date of birth and ID number came into her possession and demonstrate the legal basis for its processing. The controller indicated the possibility of an error. However, the DPA considers this argument extremely unlikely, if not impossible.

Taking into account all of the above, the DPA decided that the controller failed to process the data lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in accordance with Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. The DPA imposed an administrative fine of €1,500.

Comment

Share your comments here!

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!

English Machine Translation of the Decision

The decision below is a machine translation of the Greek original. Please refer to the Greek original for more details.

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 |ECLI=
 |Original_Source_Name_1=Office of the Commissioner for Personal Data Protection
-|Original_Source_Link_1=https://www.dataprotection.gov.cy/dataprotection/dataprotection.nsf/all/F880C7270072D4E0C2258AAE0049CEAB/$file/%CE%91%CE%A0%CE%9F%CE%A6%CE%91%CE%A3%CE%97%20%CE%93%CE%B5%CE%A3%CE%A5%2048.pdf?openelement
+|Original_Source_Link_1=https://www.dataprotection.gov.cy/dataprotection/dataprotection.nsf/all/F880C7270072D4E0C2258AAE0049CEAB/$file/%CE%91%CE%A0%CE%9F%CE%A6%CE%91%CE%A3%CE%97%20%CE%93%CE%B5%CE%A3%CE%A5%2077.pdf?openelement
 |Original_Source_Language_1=Greek
 |Original_Source_Language__Code_1=EL
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 |Outcome=Upheld
 |Date_Started=28.04.2021
-|Date_Decided=07.12.2023
+|Date_Decided=21.12.2023
-|Date_Published=07.12.2023
+|Date_Published=
 |Year=2023
-|Fine=1500
+|Fine=1,500
 |Currency=EUR
-|GDPR_Article_1=Article 5(1)(a) GDPR
+|GDPR_Article_1=Article 4(2) GDPR
-|GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 5 GDPR#1a
+|GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 4 GDPR#2
-|GDPR_Article_2=Article 57(1)(f) GDPR
+|GDPR_Article_2=Article 5(1)(a) GDPR
-|GDPR_Article_Link_2=Article 57 GDPR#1f
+|GDPR_Article_Link_2=Article 5 GDPR#1a
-|GDPR_Article_3=Article 58(2)(i) GDPR
+|GDPR_Article_3=
-|GDPR_Article_Link_3=Article 58 GDPR#2i
+|GDPR_Article_Link_3=
-|GDPR_Article_4=Article 83 GDPR
+|GDPR_Article_4=
-|GDPR_Article_Link_4=Article 83 GDPR
+|GDPR_Article_Link_4=
-|GDPR_Article_5=
-|GDPR_Article_Link_5=
-|GDPR_Article_6=
-|GDPR_Article_Link_6=
 |EU_Law_Name_1=
@@ Line 51: / Line 47: @@
 |National_Law_Link_2=
-|Party_Name_1=Complainant
+|Party_Name_1=
 |Party_Link_1=
-|Party_Name_2=Respondent
+|Party_Name_2=
 |Party_Link_2=
-|Party_Name_3=
-|Party_Link_3=
-|Party_Name_4=
-|Party_Link_4=
 |Appeal_To_Body=
@@ Line 65: / Line 57: @@
 |Appeal_To_Link=
-|Initial_Contributor=Evangelia Tsimpida
+|Initial_Contributor=im
 |
 }}
-The Cypriot Commissioner for Personal Data Protection, following a complaint, proceeded to fine a doctor for breaching the principle of "lawfulness, fairness and transparency" as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of the GDPR.
+The DPA fined a doctor €1,500 for unauthorized access to a data subject’s medical records and for failing to explain her legal basis.
 == English Summary ==
 === Facts ===
-On 28.04.2021 a complaint was submitted to the Office of the Commissioner for Personal Data Protection by the Complainant, who found that on 09.03.2021 her personal data was accessed by the Respondent, a doctor, to the portal of the beneficiaries of the General Health System (ΓεΣΥ), without a referral and without her permission. The reason given for accessing the Complainant's online ΓεΣΥ account was "The provider created a visit without a referral and had the beneficiary's consent to access his/her Medical Record". The Complainant, upon discovering the access to her medical records by the Respondent, attempted to contact her without success.
+The data subject filed a complaint with the DPA for an unauthorized access to her personal data through a General Health System (‘GHS’) portal. The data subject provided a screenshot of a notification showing that on 9 March 2021 a doctor specialised in endocrinology, the controller, accessed their medical records without any referral in force. The notification stated that the data subject provided consent for the access to her records. ´However, the doctor never examined the data subject.
-The Health Insurance Agency confirmed the access to the medical data of the complainant by the respondent on 09.03.2021 without issuing a referral, claim for compensation for services or registering a visit involving the complainant.
-On 19.07.2022, the Respondent provided relevant explanations about the incident to both the Health Insurance Agency and the Commissioner's Office. She confirmed that she indeed did not know and had not examined the Complainant and neither did her secretary have the Complainant's details in her file. In order to access the Complainant's medical records in the ΓεΣΥ computer system, it was necessary to enter the beneficiary's full name, date of birth and ID number, and therefore the Respondent claimed that she assumed that she had spoken to the Complainant by telephone for a visit and thus gained access. Otherwise, she assumed that it was an accidental error in her attempt to access another patient's file. As a considerable amount of time had elapsed, she cannot recall anything specific about the incident. In her explanations, the Respondent insists that there was no processing of the Complainant's personal data and that the Complainant did not suffer any damage as a result of the incident.
+The doctor ('controller') replied to the complaint claiming that they did not visit the GHS portal concerning the data subject. As she did not know the data subject, she stated that it was impossible for her to know their personal data such as name, date of birth and ID number needed to access their records. She indicated a possible mistake in entering details in the portal while trying to locate another patient, however, no processing of the patient’s data took place. Further, she stated that there was no malicious intent on her part and she was continued being guided by medical confidentiality.
-On 20.07.2022 the Complainant replied to the Respondent's explanations. She claimed that she never contacted the Respondent by telephone nor did she give her personal data to the Respondent's secretary. As soon as she became aware of the breach, she sought the Respondent and contacted her secretary, leaving her full name and telephone number (not her date of birth or her identity) so that the Respondent could call her, but she was unable to contact the Respondent.
-The Respondent did not add anything else, but persisted in her position.
 === Holding ===
-The Cypriot Commissioner for Personal Data Protection assessed the above facts, underlining the fact that, as is evident from both sides, the Respondent did not know the Complainant nor had examined her. Furthermore, it is an important element that the doctor could not prove that she obtained the Complainant's personal data in a lawful manner and that she was authorised to access the beneficiary portal. The Commissioner noted that the possession of the Complainant's data, as well as access to the Complainant's beneficiary record on the ΓεΣΥ, constituted acts of processing on the part of the Respondent. Factors such as the absence of malicious intent or the absence of harm do not affect the fact that there was indeed a breach of the Complainant's data. Furthermore, the Commissioner held that the personal data required for access to the complainant's medical file did not suggest that this was an accidental occurrence.
+The DPA took into the consideration the important element that both data subject and the controller did not know each other and that the controller never examined the data subject.
-Taking the above into account, the Commissioner considered that there was a violation of Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, because the Complainant's personal data were not processed lawfully and fairly in a transparent manner and pursuant to Article 58(2)(i) and Article 83 of the GDPR imposed an administrative fine of one thousand five hundred euros (EUR 1,500) on the Respondent.
+The DPA specified that the possession of the data as well as the access to the patient’s file constitute acts of processing under [[Article 4 GDPR#2|Article 4(2) GDPR]]. For that reason, the controller had to prove how the data subject’s personal data such as name, date of birth and ID number came into her possession and demonstrate the legal basis for its processing. The controller indicated the possibility of an error. However, the DPA considers this argument extremely unlikely, if not impossible.
+Taking into account all of the above, the DPA decided that the controller failed to process the data lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in accordance with [[Article 5 GDPR#1a|Article 5(1)(a) GDPR]]. The DPA imposed an administrative fine of €1,500.
 == Comment ==
@@ Line 94: / Line 87: @@
 <pre>
-I reviewed a complaint submitted to my Office regarding access to the Complainant's General Health System (GHS) account by a medical practitioner. Specifically, as the Complainant mentioned, she found access to her personal data from the doctor, on the GeSY beneficiary portal, without knowing the doctor, without a referral and without her permission. During the investigation, both the Complainant and the doctor reported to my Office that each did not know the other and that the doctor did not examine the complainant.
-I evaluated the doctor's positions regarding the possible ways of obtaining the Complainant's data, which were necessary to access the Complainant's beneficiary portal at the NHS. However, the doctor was unable to prove that she legally obtained the Complainant's personal data and that she was authorized to gain access to the beneficiary portal. Therefore, the Complainant's personal data were not processed lawfully and legitimately in a transparent manner. That is, the principle of "legality, objectivity and transparency", as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of the Regulation, was not observed. For the violation of this article, I imposed on the doctor an administrative fine of one thousand five hundred euros (€1500).
 </pre>