NSA - III OSK 135/23: Difference between revisions
m (→Facts) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
}} | }} | ||
The Supreme Administrative Court | The Supreme Administrative Court held that sending a letter to the registered address of an individual does not violate the rights of another individual residing at the same address. For the purpose of the mailing the address is personal data only regarding the intended recipient, not of other residents. | ||
== English Summary == | == English Summary == | ||
=== Facts === | === Facts === | ||
The Chief of a County (Starosta Powiatowy, the controller) sent a letter addressed to an individual who co-owns land with the county. The letter referred to the fee for usufruct ( | The Chief of a County (Starosta Powiatowy, the controller) sent a letter addressed to an individual who co-owns land with the county. The letter referred to the fee for perpetual usufruct of the land (użytkowanie wieczyste; i.e. a temporary lease of state's land by a natural or legal person, up to 99 years, in exchange for an annual fee). However, the letter was delivered to another individual (the data subject) residing at the address used by the Chief of County. | ||
The data subject lodged a complaint with the Polish DPA (UODO). The individual argued the land’s co-owner did not reside in the address. The controller explained they used the land’s co-owner's registered address and the data subject's statement was not suffice to invalidate it. | The data subject lodged a complaint with the Polish DPA (UODO). The individual argued the land’s co-owner did not reside in the address. The controller explained they used the land’s co-owner's registered address and the data subject's statement was not suffice to invalidate it. | ||
Revision as of 06:24, 24 September 2024
| NSA - III OSK 135/23 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | NSA (Poland) |
| Jurisdiction: | Poland |
| Relevant Law: | Article 4(1) GDPR |
| Decided: | 02.08.2024 |
| Published: | |
| Parties: | |
| National Case Number/Name: | III OSK 135/23 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | |
| Appeal from: | UODO (Poland) n/a |
| Appeal to: | Appealed - Overturned WSA Warsaw (Poland) II SA/Wa 4025/21 |
| Original Language(s): | Polish |
| Original Source: | Centralna Baza Orzeczeń Sądów Administracyjnych (in Polish) |
| Initial Contributor: | wp |
The Supreme Administrative Court held that sending a letter to the registered address of an individual does not violate the rights of another individual residing at the same address. For the purpose of the mailing the address is personal data only regarding the intended recipient, not of other residents.
English Summary
Facts
The Chief of a County (Starosta Powiatowy, the controller) sent a letter addressed to an individual who co-owns land with the county. The letter referred to the fee for perpetual usufruct of the land (użytkowanie wieczyste; i.e. a temporary lease of state's land by a natural or legal person, up to 99 years, in exchange for an annual fee). However, the letter was delivered to another individual (the data subject) residing at the address used by the Chief of County.
The data subject lodged a complaint with the Polish DPA (UODO). The individual argued the land’s co-owner did not reside in the address. The controller explained they used the land’s co-owner's registered address and the data subject's statement was not suffice to invalidate it.
The DPA dismissed the case, emphasising the controller didn’t violated the GDPR by sending the correspondence on the registered address of the land’s co-owner. Additionally, the individual’s right to data protection was not violated, as the authority didn’t process their data, but data of the land’s co-owner.
The individual appealed against the DPA’s decision. The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie) upheld the DPA’s decision. Consequently, the individual brought the case before the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny).
Holding
The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal. The court found no evidence of the controller’s misconduct.
Also, the court confirmed the data subject was not affected. The authority acquired the address from the official register. The mere fact that the same address was shared by the data subject and the land’s co-owner didn’t amount to the GDPR violation. The court underlined that, in the case at hand, it was the land’s co-owner data processed, not the data subject's.
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.
