NSA - III OSK 1632/24: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{COURTdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Poland |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png |Court_Abbrevation=NSA |Court_Original_Name=Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny |Court_English_Name=the Supreme Administrative Court |Court_With_Country=NSA (Poland) |Case_Number_Name=III OSK 1632/24 |ECLI= |Original_Source_Name_1=Centralna Baza Orzeczeń Sądów Administracyjnych |Original_Source_Link_1=https://orzeczenia.nsa.gov.pl/doc/D590EA26A4 |Original_Source_Language_1=Polish |Origin...") |
(→Facts) |
||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
In November 2022 the DPA decided to join both proceedings initiated by the data subject. According to the DPA, complaints referred to the same subject matter, unlawful phone number processing for marketing purpose. | In November 2022 the DPA decided to join both proceedings initiated by the data subject. According to the DPA, complaints referred to the same subject matter, unlawful phone number processing for marketing purpose. | ||
In April 2023, the DPA notified the parties that examination proceedings were over, and the parties were entitled to present their position as to the collected evidence (Article 10(1) of the code of administrative procedure). | In April 2023, the DPA notified the parties that examination proceedings were over, and the parties were entitled to present their position as to the collected evidence ([https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU19600300168/U/D19600168Lj.pdf Article 10(1) of the code of administrative procedure]). | ||
In July 2023 the data subject issued a motion with the DPA to accelerate the proceedings. Afterwards, the data subject lodged a complaint against the DPA inactivity with the Voivodeship Administrative Court of Warsaw (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie). | In July 2023 the data subject issued a motion with the DPA to accelerate the proceedings. Afterwards, the data subject lodged a complaint against the DPA inactivity with the Voivodeship Administrative Court of Warsaw (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie). | ||
Revision as of 13:59, 11 March 2025
| NSA - III OSK 1632/24 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | NSA (Poland) |
| Jurisdiction: | Poland |
| Relevant Law: | Article 78(2) GDPR |
| Decided: | 12.02.2025 |
| Published: | |
| Parties: | UODO (Poland) |
| National Case Number/Name: | III OSK 1632/24 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | |
| Appeal from: | WSA Warsaw (Poland) II SAB/Wa 596/23 |
| Appeal to: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | Polish |
| Original Source: | Centralna Baza Orzeczeń Sądów Administracyjnych (in Polish) |
| Initial Contributor: | w.p. |
The Supreme Administrative Court found the DPA was obliged to examine a case and issue an administrative decision under Article 78(2) GDPR, i.e. within 3 months.
English Summary
Facts
A data subject filed a complaint with the Polish DPA (UODO) against a controller in May 2022. The DPA ordered the complaint to be supplemented by description of alleged violations and expected actions to be taken by the DPA against the controller. In July 2022 the data subject filed another complaint, against other controller who allegedly unlawfully processed their data for marketing purpose.
In November 2022 the DPA decided to join both proceedings initiated by the data subject. According to the DPA, complaints referred to the same subject matter, unlawful phone number processing for marketing purpose.
In April 2023, the DPA notified the parties that examination proceedings were over, and the parties were entitled to present their position as to the collected evidence (Article 10(1) of the code of administrative procedure).
In July 2023 the data subject issued a motion with the DPA to accelerate the proceedings. Afterwards, the data subject lodged a complaint against the DPA inactivity with the Voivodeship Administrative Court of Warsaw (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie).
In the meantime, in October 2023 the DPA issued a decision, closing the case at hand.
The court upheld the complaint. According to the court, Article 78(2) GDPR set forth 3-month term to examine the case. The DPA failed to do so. In particular, the court found the DPA took no action for several times during the proceedings and such an inactivity was not substantiated. The fact that the decision was eventually issued was irrelevant for the inactivity complaint.
The DPA lodged a cassation appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny – NSA).
Holding
The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the cassation appeal.
The court emphasised that the scope of inactivity covered situations when an authority exceeded the time to given to examine a case. Under Article 78(2) GDPR the DPA was obliged to examine the case and issue a decision within 3 months. If the DPA knew the case required extensive examination proceedings, they were obliged to notify the data subject about the delay, inform them about the status of the case and indicate when the case would be closed. However, the DPA didn’t perform any of the aforementioned actions. Thus, the cassation appeal was dismissed as unfounded.
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 Polish original. Please refer to the Polish original for more details.
