HDPA (Greece) - 38/2019: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
1) Does a telephone number constitute personal data? | 1) Does a telephone number constitute personal data? | ||
2) Who is the controller? | 2) Who is the data controller? | ||
3) Do the processing activities pursue (even partially) advertising purposes? | 3) Do the processing activities pursue (even partially) advertising purposes? | ||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
The HDPA found that: | The HDPA found that: | ||
1) The telephone number constitutes personal data according to Article 4 (1) GDPR as the owner can be indirectly identified. | 1) The telephone number constitutes personal data according to [[Article 4 GDPR#1|Article 4(1) GDPR]] as the owner can be indirectly identified. | ||
2) In both cases above, Wind is the data controller as it exclusively determines the purpose of the processing while the contracting companies are data processors. | 2) In both cases above, Wind is the data controller as it exclusively determines the purpose of the processing while the contracting companies are data processors. | ||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
4) The data subjects’ consent is not valid. | 4) The data subjects’ consent is not valid. | ||
In addition to those issues, the HDPA admitted all the complaints and found that Wind Hellas had violated Article 14 GDPR and the national law on the protection of personal data and privacy in the telecommunication sector, while the processor ΠΛΕΓΜΑ ΝΕΤ had violated Article 32 GDPR. | In addition to those issues, the HDPA admitted all the complaints and found that Wind Hellas had violated [[Article 14 GDPR|Article 14 GDPR]] and the national law on the protection of personal data and privacy in the telecommunication sector, while the processor ΠΛΕΓΜΑ ΝΕΤ had violated [[Article 32 GDPR|Article 32 GDPR]]. | ||
==Comment== | ==Comment== | ||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
==Further Resources== | ==Further Resources== | ||
''Share blogs or news articles here!'' | ''Share blogs or news articles here!'' | ||
==English Machine Translation of the Decision== | ==English Machine Translation of the Decision== | ||
There is no available machine translated decision. Please refer to the Greek original decision for details. | |||
<pre> | <pre> | ||
</pre> | </pre> | ||
Revision as of 22:31, 20 January 2020
| HDPA - 38/2019 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Authority: | HDPA (Greece) |
| Jurisdiction: | Greece |
| Relevant Law: | Article 4(1) GDPR |
| Type: | n/a |
| Outcome: | Violation |
| Decided: | 18.10.2019 |
| Published: | n/a |
| Fine: | 20,000 EUR |
| Parties: | Wind Hellas and ΠΛΕΓΜΑ ΝΕΤ |
| National Case Number: | 38/2019 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | n/a |
| Appeal: | n/a |
| Original Language: |
Greek |
| Original Source: | HDPA (GR) |
The HDPA imposed a fine of EUR 20,000 and a reprimand to the telecommunication company Wind Hellas for violation of the GDPR and of the national law implementing the ePrivacy Directive and it issued a reprimand to the telephone services company ΠΛΕΓΜΑ ΝΕΤ for violation of the GDPR.
English Summary
Facts
The HDPA examined six complaints against Wind Hellas (hereafter "Wind") and ΠΛΕΓΜΑ ΝΕΤ for unsolicited calls with human intervention for direct marketing purposes. Wind claimed, among others, that it should not be the only liable company but it should first be assessed, as a preliminary issue, which the role of the contracting companies operating as call centres is (either data controllers or data processors). It claimed that some of them are data processors, because Wind provides them with lists with telephone numbers and with explicit orders for specific advertising activities; some others are data controllers, since they process lists with numbers they compile themselves, without Wind being aware of them. Wind also claimed that the purpose of the calls is research and not advertising.
Dispute
1) Does a telephone number constitute personal data?
2) Who is the data controller?
3) Do the processing activities pursue (even partially) advertising purposes?
4) Is the data subjects’ consent valid?
Holding
The HDPA found that:
1) The telephone number constitutes personal data according to Article 4(1) GDPR as the owner can be indirectly identified.
2) In both cases above, Wind is the data controller as it exclusively determines the purpose of the processing while the contracting companies are data processors.
3) The processing activities are intended to pursue (at least partially) advertising purposes.
4) The data subjects’ consent is not valid.
In addition to those issues, the HDPA admitted all the complaints and found that Wind Hellas had violated Article 14 GDPR and the national law on the protection of personal data and privacy in the telecommunication sector, while the processor ΠΛΕΓΜΑ ΝΕΤ had violated Article 32 GDPR.
Comment
Share your comments here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
There is no available machine translated decision. Please refer to the Greek original decision for details.
