NSA - III OSK 135/23
| 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 rejected the cassation appeals as unfounded. The delivery of a letter addressed to land’s co-owner on their registered address did not violate the GDPR.
English Summary
Facts
A Chief of a County (Starosta Powiatowy, an authority) sent letter deliver to an individual. The letter referred to the fee for usufruct of the land and was addressed to one of the land’s co-owner.
The individual lodged a complaint with the Polish DPA (UODO). The individual argued the land’s co-owner did not reside in the address. The authority explained they used the land’s co-owner registered address and the individual statement was not suffice to invalidate it.
The DPA dismissed the case, emphasising the authority didn’t violated the GDPR by sending the correspondence on the registered address 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 court dismissed the cassation appeal. The court found no evidence of the authority’s misconduct.
Also, the court confirmed the individual was not affected. The authority acquired the address from the official register. The mere fact that the same address was shared by the individual 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 individual.
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.
