HDPA (Greece) - 33/2023: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:33, 20 December 2023

HDPA - 33/2023

Authority:	HDPA (Greece)
Jurisdiction:	Greece
Relevant Law:	Article 5(1)(a) GDPR Article 5(1)(c) GDPR Article 6(1)(c) GDPR Article 17(1) GDPR Article 57(1)(c) GDPR Article 58(2) GDPR
Type:	Complaint
Outcome:	Upheld
Started:	25.10.2021
Decided:	11.04.2023
Published:	07.11.2023
Fine:	5000 EUR
Parties:	n/a
National Case Number/Name:	33/2023
European Case Law Identifier:	n/a
Appeal:	Unknown
Original Language(s):	Greek
Original Source:	HDPA (in EL)
Initial Contributor:	Iliana Papantoni

The Hellenic DPA fined a municipality for uploading personal data to a public portal and then failing to comply with the subsequent erasure request.

English Summary

Facts

A municipality uploaded on a public portal (“diavgeia”) a decision where the personal data of an employee including her full name, position, place of employment and involvement in a criminal complaint were mentioned. A separate decision regarding her participation in the municipality's financial council was also discovered by the data subject on the portal. The complainant requested the erasure of her personal data from the public portal by exercising her right to erasure under Article 17 GDPR.

The DPO of the municipality rejected her request on the grounds that the municipality had the legal obligation to upload onto this portal every act, decision or document relating to the performance of its duties, under national law.

In 25 October 2021, the data subject lodged a complaint before the Hellenic DPA ("HDPA") against the municipality.

Holding

After considering all the facts of the case, the Hellenic DPA fined the municipality a total of €5000.

They fined the them €2,000 for breaches 6(1)(c) and Articles 5(1)(a) GDPR. The muncipality had processed data unlawfully. The DPA considered the national law and concluded that the decisions fell outside its scope, therefore the municipality could not rely on Article 6(1)(c) GDPR as a legal basis. This made the processing also unlawful under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR.

The DPA fined the municipality €1,000 for violating Article 5(1)(c) GDPR as the municipality had not adhered to the principle of data minimisation by having no filter for the selection of decisions which had to be published on the online portal.

The DPA fined the muncipality €2,000 for violating Article 17(1) GDPR. This was because the DPO refused to erase the data when requested to do so by the data subject.

The Hellenic DPA also ordered the municipality to remove the two decisions concerning the data subject from its website within a 20-day period.

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.

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 After considering all the facts of the case, the Hellenic DPA fined the municipality a total of €5000.
-They fined the them €2,000 for breaches 6(1)(c) and Articles 5(1)(a) GDPR. The muncipality had processed data unlawfully. The data subject had withdrawn the consent over the processing by raising a complaint with the DPO, that the muncipality no longer had a legal basis. Moreover, it was not lawful because once the complainent objected to the processing of her data (for example, through an erasure request), the controller should have ceased the processing unless they could prove that there were overriding interests to do so under Article 21 GDPR.
+They fined the them €2,000 for breaches 6(1)(c) and Articles 5(1)(a) GDPR. The muncipality had processed data unlawfully. The DPA considered the national law and concluded that the decisions fell outside its scope, therefore the municipality could not rely on Article 6(1)(c) GDPR as a legal basis. This made the processing also unlawful under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR.
 The DPA fined the municipality €1,000 for violating Article 5(1)(c) GDPR as the municipality had not adhered to the principle of data minimisation by having no filter for the selection of decisions which had to be published on the online portal.