HDPA (Greece) - 1/2022: Difference between revisions

From GDPRhub
(Created page with "{{DPAdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Greece |DPA-BG-Color=background-color:#ffffff; |DPAlogo=LogoGR.jpg |DPA_Abbrevation=HDPA (Greece) |DPA_With_Country=HDPA (Greece) |Case_Number...")
 
(Corrections made to explain the facts and the holding more clearly. Included the specific articles breached in the short summary and holding section. Edited the metadata to only include the GDPR articles relevant to the holding.)
Line 23: Line 23:
|Currency=EUR
|Currency=EUR


|GDPR_Article_1=Article 4(1) GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 4 GDPR#1
|GDPR_Article_2=Article 9 GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_2=Article 9 GDPR
|GDPR_Article_3=Article 10 GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_3=Article 10 GDPR
|GDPR_Article_4=Article 12(3) GDPR
|GDPR_Article_4=Article 12(3) GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_4=Article 12 GDPR#3
|GDPR_Article_Link_4=Article 12 GDPR#3
|GDPR_Article_5=Article 15 GDPR
|GDPR_Article_5=Article 15 GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_5=Article 15 GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_5=Article 15 GDPR
|GDPR_Article_6=Article 58(2) GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_6=Article 58 GDPR#2
|GDPR_Article_7=Article 83(2) GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_7=Article 83 GDPR#2
|GDPR_Article_8=Article 83(5)(a) GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_8=Article 83 GDPR#5a
|GDPR_Article_9=Article 83(5)(b) GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_9=Article 83 GDPR#5b
|Party_Name_1=
|Party_Name_1=
|Party_Link_1=
|Party_Link_1=
Line 64: Line 47:
}}
}}


The HDPA fined the greek company 1.000 Euros for not responding at a data's subject request in a proper way, according to the GDPR.  
The Helenic DPA fined the greek company €1000  €1000 for violations of [[Article 15 GDPR]] and Article 12(3) GDPR by not granting the data subject their right of access in due time.  


== English Summary ==
== English Summary ==


=== Facts ===
=== Facts ===
In 2019 a data subject submitted a complaint to the HDPA against a greek company, "Egnatia Odos S.A.", since the company refused to provide him with a photographic material and a copy from a Book of Recorded Events, in relation to the imputation of a non payment of a toll fee that concerns him. The company stated that was unable to provide such information to third parties, without any Procedure's order. The HDPA informed the company that according to the [[Article 15 GDPR|Article 15 GDPR]], the data subject has the right to obtain from the controller confirmation, as to whether or not personal data concerning him are being processed. The HDPA also noted that, the controller has a time limit in order to respond to the data's subject request. The greek company sent  just a copy of the Book of the Recorded Events, since the photographic material of that day did not exist, because of a technical problem. The HDPA called the company to express its opinions concerning the incident. The company stated that had communicated constantly with the data subject and had sent the copy. Last but not least pointed out that, in order to prove a violation of the payment of a toll fee, only the recorded events in the Book of Events, are sufficient.  
In 2019 a data subject submitted a complaint to the Helenic DPA (HDPA) against greek company "Egnatia Odos S.A." for its refusal to provide the complainant with a photographic material and a copy from a Book of Recorded Events in relation a non-payment of a toll fee they were imputed with.
 
The company stated that it was unable to provide such information to third parties without any procedural order. The HDPA informed the company that according to the [[Article 15 GDPR]], the data subject has the right to obtain from the controller confirmation as to whether or not personal data concerning him is being processed. The HDPA also noted that, the controller has a time limit in order to respond to the data subject's request according to Article 12(3) GDPR.  
 
The company then only provided the claimant with a copy of the Book of the Recorded Events, since the photographic material of that day did not exist because of a technical problem.
 
The HDPA called the company to express its opinions concerning the incident. The company stated that it had communicated constantly with the data subject, and had sent them the copy from the Book of the Recorded Events which according to them was sufficient in order to prove a violation of a toll fee payment.  


=== Holding ===
=== Holding ===
The HDPA held that the greek company was clearly informed by the Authority regarding its obligation in similar incidents, that took place before the GDPR entry into force. Moreover stated that, the company not only refused to answer the data's subject request, but also tried to mislead the subject. The Authority also highlighted that the [[Article 15 GDPR|Article 15 GDPR]] does not set conditions for the exercise of the "access right". All in all, decided to fine the greek company for a violation of [[Article 15 GDPR|Article 15 GDPR]].  
The HDPA held that the company not only refused to answer the data subject's request, but also tried to mislead the subject by stating that it was not required to provide data to third parties without a procedural order.
 
The HDPA held that it had previously informed the company about its right of access obligations in a recommendation regarding a similar incident that took place before the GDPR entered into force, and that these requirements had not changed substantially since GDPR entered into force.
 
The HDPA also highlighted that the data subject should not be considered a third party, and that under [[Article 15 GDPR]] it is irrelevant for what purpose the subject exercises the right of access, as this provision doesn't lay down any conditions for its exercise.
 
The HDPA fined the company €1000 for violations of [[Article 15 GDPR]] and Article 12(3) GDPR by not granting the data subject their right of access in due time.  


== Comment ==
== Comment ==

Revision as of 17:57, 17 January 2022

HDPA (Greece) - 1/2021
LogoGR.jpg
Authority: HDPA (Greece)
Jurisdiction: Greece
Relevant Law:
Article 12(3) GDPR
Article 15 GDPR
Type: Complaint
Outcome: Upheld
Started:
Decided: 06.10.2021
Published: 05.01.2022
Fine: 1000 EUR
Parties: n/a
National Case Number/Name: 1/2021
European Case Law Identifier: n/a
Appeal: n/a
Original Language(s): Greek
Original Source: HDPA (in EL)
Initial Contributor: Anastasia.Tsermenidou

The Helenic DPA fined the greek company €1000 €1000 for violations of Article 15 GDPR and Article 12(3) GDPR by not granting the data subject their right of access in due time.

English Summary

Facts

In 2019 a data subject submitted a complaint to the Helenic DPA (HDPA) against greek company "Egnatia Odos S.A." for its refusal to provide the complainant with a photographic material and a copy from a Book of Recorded Events in relation a non-payment of a toll fee they were imputed with.

The company stated that it was unable to provide such information to third parties without any procedural order. The HDPA informed the company that according to the Article 15 GDPR, the data subject has the right to obtain from the controller confirmation as to whether or not personal data concerning him is being processed. The HDPA also noted that, the controller has a time limit in order to respond to the data subject's request according to Article 12(3) GDPR.

The company then only provided the claimant with a copy of the Book of the Recorded Events, since the photographic material of that day did not exist because of a technical problem.

The HDPA called the company to express its opinions concerning the incident. The company stated that it had communicated constantly with the data subject, and had sent them the copy from the Book of the Recorded Events which according to them was sufficient in order to prove a violation of a toll fee payment.

Holding

The HDPA held that the company not only refused to answer the data subject's request, but also tried to mislead the subject by stating that it was not required to provide data to third parties without a procedural order.

The HDPA held that it had previously informed the company about its right of access obligations in a recommendation regarding a similar incident that took place before the GDPR entered into force, and that these requirements had not changed substantially since GDPR entered into force.

The HDPA also highlighted that the data subject should not be considered a third party, and that under Article 15 GDPR it is irrelevant for what purpose the subject exercises the right of access, as this provision doesn't lay down any conditions for its exercise.

The HDPA fined the company €1000 for violations of Article 15 GDPR and Article 12(3) GDPR by not granting the data subject their right of access in due time.

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. 



  
    

  
  
    
  
    Category
              Decision
          

  
    Date
              05/01/2022

          

  
    Transaction number
              1
          

  
    Thematic unit
          
              15. Video surveillance
          16. Other
              
      

  
    Applicable provisions
          
              Article 12.3: Deadline for responding to a right
              
      

  
    Summary
              A toll management company operates a video surveillance system in order to detect violations of non-payment of tolls. After being informed about a fine imposed on him, a car owner. exercised the right of access to the company in order to obtain photographic material and a copy of the incident book in connection with the imputation of the infringement. The company initially replied that the crossing had been recorded by the toll station crossing system, but could only provide information by order of the Prosecutor and with the relevant permission of the Authority. Following the intervention of the Authority, the company provided the available data, which did not include visual material. The Authority, which had informed the company as early as 2017 that such requests constitute an exercise of the right of access, which it must satisfy, imposed a fine of 1,000 euros due to delayed satisfaction of the right.

          

  
    PDF Decision
              1_2022 anonym.pdf270.25 KB
          

  


    
  
    Category
              Decision
          

  
    Date
              05/01/2022

          

  
    Transaction number
              1
          

  
    Thematic unit
          
              15. Video surveillance
          16. Other
              
      

  
    Applicable provisions
          
              Article 12.3: Deadline for responding to a right
              
      

  
    Summary
              A toll management company operates a video surveillance system in order to detect violations of non-payment of tolls. After being informed about a fine imposed on him, a car owner. exercised the right of access to the company in order to obtain photographic material and a copy of the incident book in connection with the imputation of the infringement. The company initially replied that the crossing had been recorded by the toll station crossing system, but could only provide information by order of the Prosecutor and with the relevant permission of the Authority. Following the intervention of the Authority, the company provided the available data, which did not include visual material. The Authority, which had informed the company as early as 2017 that such requests constitute an exercise of the right of access, which it must satisfy, imposed a fine of 1,000 euros due to delayed satisfaction of the right.

          

  
    PDF Decision
              1_2022 anonym.pdf270.25 KB
Retrieved from "https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=HDPA_(Greece)_-_1/2022&oldid=22271"
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
Powered by MediaWiki