HDPA (Greece) - 39/2019: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
|Outcome:||Rejected | |Outcome:||Rejected | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Decided:||25.10. 2019 | |Decided:||25. 10. 2019 | ||
[[Category:2019]] | [[Category:2019]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Published:||n/a | |Published:||n/a | ||
| Line 41: | Line 42: | ||
|} | |} | ||
The HDPA rejected | The HDPA rejected appeal filed by the Greek bank Eurobank Ergasias S.A. against HDPA's older decision linked to the exercise of the right to access and right to object under GDPR. | ||
==English Summary== | ==English Summary== | ||
===Facts=== | ===Facts=== | ||
The | The Greek bank Eurobank Ergasias S.A. appealed before the HDPA to challenge HDPA's older decision. The appealed decision provided advises on what measures the Bank should have taken to properly respond to a data subject's access request and to guarantee the exercise of the right to object. The Bank claimed that the appealed decision imposed disproportionate obligations on it and on other creditors violating the former national data protection law and the law on the establishment of debtor notification companies. | ||
===Dispute=== | ===Dispute=== | ||
The issue at stake was mainly the period within the Bank had to notify the personal data to the data subjects, | The issue at stake was mainly the determination of the period within which the Bank had to notify the personal data to the data subjects, in order for the debtors to be able to exercise their rights to access and to object. The appealed decision recommended that the Bank provide the debtors with a reasonable period of 10-15 days starting from the notification of the debtors until the Bank distributes their personal data to the debtor notification companies. | ||
===Holding=== | ===Holding=== | ||
The HDPA ruled that there is no ground for re-examination of this case. Thus it rejected the appeal. | The HDPA ruled that there is no ground for re-examination of this case. Thus, it rejected the appeal. | ||
==Comment== | ==Comment== | ||
Revision as of 22:11, 20 January 2020
| HDPA - 39/2019 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Authority: | HDPA (Greece) |
| Jurisdiction: | Greece |
| Relevant Law: | Article 15 GDPR |
| Type: | Appeal before the HDPA |
| Outcome: | Rejected |
| Decided: | 25. 10. 2019 |
| Published: | n/a |
| Fine: | none |
| Parties: | Ergasias S.A |
| National Case Number: | 39/2019 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | n/a |
| Appeal: | n/a |
| Original Language: |
Greek |
| Original Source: | HDPA (GR) |
The HDPA rejected appeal filed by the Greek bank Eurobank Ergasias S.A. against HDPA's older decision linked to the exercise of the right to access and right to object under GDPR.
English Summary
Facts
The Greek bank Eurobank Ergasias S.A. appealed before the HDPA to challenge HDPA's older decision. The appealed decision provided advises on what measures the Bank should have taken to properly respond to a data subject's access request and to guarantee the exercise of the right to object. The Bank claimed that the appealed decision imposed disproportionate obligations on it and on other creditors violating the former national data protection law and the law on the establishment of debtor notification companies.
Dispute
The issue at stake was mainly the determination of the period within which the Bank had to notify the personal data to the data subjects, in order for the debtors to be able to exercise their rights to access and to object. The appealed decision recommended that the Bank provide the debtors with a reasonable period of 10-15 days starting from the notification of the debtors until the Bank distributes their personal data to the debtor notification companies.
Holding
The HDPA ruled that there is no ground for re-examination of this case. Thus, it rejected the appeal.
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 original. Please refer to the Greek original for more details.
published decision AP. 39/2019
