HDPA (Greece) - 30/2024

HDPA - 30/2024

Authority:	HDPA (Greece)
Jurisdiction:	Greece
Relevant Law:	Article 5 GDPR Article 12(3) GDPR Article 12(4) GDPR Article 12(5)(b) GDPR Article 13 GDPR Article 14 GDPR Article 15(1) GDPR Article 15(3) GDPR Article 15(4) GDPR Article 22(1) GDPR Article 22(4) GDPR Article 31 GDPR Article 51 GDPR Article 55 GDPR Article 58(2)(i) GDPR Article 83(2) GDPR Article 83(4)(a) GDPR Article 83(5)(b) GDPR Article 5 of Law 4194/2013 Article 9 of Law 4624/2019
Type:	Complaint
Outcome:	Upheld
Started:
Decided:	09.11.2024
Published:	16.09.2024
Fine:	1,400 EUR
Parties:	"Α" "Attorney at Law"
National Case Number/Name:	30/2024
European Case Law Identifier:	n/a
Appeal:	Unknown
Original Language(s):	Greek
Original Source:	HDPA (GREECE) (in EL)
Initial Contributor:	Christina Petsou

A data subject submitted a complaint to the DPA against their former lawyer (the controller), claiming that the latter failed to return personal documents related to cases the controller had previously handled on the complainant's behalf, which constituted a violation of the GDPR’s provisions on data subject access rights (Article 15 GDPR).

English Summary

Facts

In 2019, the data subject asked their former lawyer (the controller) to return documents related to legal matters. Despite multiple requests, including an SMS in November 2019 and an email in April 2020, the controller failed to respond. The data subject continued pressing for the return of the documents through extrajudicial notices in September 2020 and June 2021, yet received no action or response.

Afterwards, the data subject submitted a complaint to the Hellenic Data Protection Authority (HDPA) in December 2022, alleging that the controller had violated their data access rights under GDPR. The HDPA initiated an investigation, requesting written clarifications from the controller. However, the controller did not respond to the HDPA properly.

The HDPA once again requested clarifications from the controller, reminding them of the obligation to cooperate with the supervisory authority, as derived from Article 31 GDPR. Subsequently, the HDPA requested more details and documents from the data subject.

The HDPA scheduled a hearing during which the data subject emphasised that their right to access personal data had been violated by the controller's failure to return documents. Moreover, they mentioned that the controller had never denied having the documents and was required to delete them upon the revocation of consent. On the other hand, the controller claimed that the documents were either no longer retained or accessible through other means in their office. The controller also stated that the documents in question were already available from other sources, such as public records or court files, and that the request was therefore unnecessary.

Holding

First, the HDPA held that the controller had violated Article 15 GDPR, by ignoring the data subject's access requests and withholding the requested documentation. Additionally, the HDPA found that the obligation to grant to the data subject access to their personal file should have been satisfied pursuant to the national law, Article 5 of N. 4194/2013.

Secondly, the HDPA considered that the controller breached Article 31 GDPR by refusing to cooperate with the HDPA during its investigation, failing to provide the necessary clarifications, despite repeated requests from the authority.

Finally, after evaluating the circumstances, the HDPA imposed two administrative fines on the controller, according to Article 58 (2)(i) GDPR; €700 for violating the data subject’s access rights, and €700 for failing to cooperate with the HDPA. The HDPA explained that the fines were proportionate to the violations, which were long-standing but involved a single individual.

It is worth noting that the HDPA considered various factors while determining the fines. More specifically, the HDPA took into account the absence of any prior similar violations, the controller's gross negligence rather than intentional wrongdoing, the lack of material damage caused to the data subject, the isolated nature of the incident, as the controller had no prior sanctions for similar breaches, and last but not least the controller's income, as declared in the financial statements provided to the HDPA, influenced the penalty amount to ensure proportionality.

Comment

This particular decision underscores the importance of compliance with data subject access rights under GDPR, specifically Article 15 GDPR, and the obligation for controllers to cooperate with supervisory authorities as stipulated in Article 31 GDPR. The controller's failure to respond to the data subject’s repeated requests for personal documents and non-cooperation with the HDPA, highlights the challenges of enforcing these fundamental rights, particularly when data controllers neglect their responsibilities. While the fine imposed in this case is relatively moderate (€700 for each violation), it reflects the HDPA's focus on reinforcing the necessity of transparency and accountability in personal data processing.

It is worth mentioning that this decision is consistent with previous rulings by the HDPA, where data controllers failed to meet their obligations under GDPR, particularly in cases involving access rights (Article 15 GDPR) and cooperation with investigations (Article 31 GDPR). For instance:

Decision 26/2019 involved a company failing to provide access to personal data, which similarly resulted in fines for breaching data subject rights. (https://www.dpa.gr/sites/default/files/2020-05/26_2019anonym.pdf)
Decision 14/2021 involved another lawyer who failed to cooperate with the DPA during an investigation, leading to a similar penalty for non-compliance with GDPR's cooperative requirements. (https://www.dpa.gr/sites/default/files/2021-04/14_2021anonym.pdf)

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.

Athens, 16-09-2024 Prot. No.:2513 Decision 30/2024 (Single-person Body) The President of the Authority, as a single-person body according to article 17 par. 1 of Law 4624/2019 (Official Gazette A΄ 137), in within the framework of the responsibilities provided for in articles 4 par. 3 and 10 par. 4 of the Regulation of the Authority's Operation (Government Gazette B΄879/25.02.2022), met via teleconference on 9-5-2024, in order to examine the case mentioned below in the history of this decision. Present without the right to vote was Kyriaki Karakasi, legal auditor-lawyer, as well as Irini Papageorgopoulou, an employee of the administrative affairs department, as secretary. The Authority took into account the following: The complaint No. C/EIS/12769/22-12-2022 of A was submitted to the Data Protection Authority, which complains about the non-response of the complained-about lawyer to a request for the return of documents in his last possession in the context of an order for cases that he handled as the complainant's attorney. In particular, the complainant claims that he sent the complained lawyer the first SMS on 27-11-2019, with which he requested the return of his file, while the one from 27-04- 2020 email that he also sent to the complainant requested the granting of all the files that he has handled, as his legal representative, and that concern him. The last request was also served to the defendant on 30-09-2020 and 22-06-2021 1-3 Kifissias Street, 11523 Athens, Tel: 210 6475600, Fax: 210 6475628, contact@dpa.gr / www.dpa.gr External Statements - Complaint - Nuisances , without, according to his claims, having been satisfied until the filing of the complaint, although, as he states, he does not have any financial pending after the revocation of his mandate to the complained, as his attorney. The Authority, in the context of examining the above complaint, with no. prot. C/EX/666/14-03-2023 her document, requested from the accused lawyer written clarifications on the accused as well as any relevant documentation. In particular, the accused lawyer was asked if and in what way he responded to the above requests of the complainant and in particular if and in what way he responded to the mentioned out-of-court harassment or for what reason he did not provide him with the requested information. The Authority asked the complainant to attach the relevant requests and his possible response as well as to clarify if there is any more specific reason justifying the non-satisfaction of the above requests. Following this, the accused lawyer sent letter no. prot. C/EIS/2671/11-04-2023 his response to the Authority, according to which it has been archived with no.... Order of the Criminal Prosecutor of the City of... an appeal that the complainant had submitted against him. According to the complainant, the aforementioned petition had the same content as the complaint under consideration, while it was accompanied by the same relevant documents as those submitted before the Authority. Due to the fact that none of the specific questions raised by the Authority with initial no. prot. C/EXE/666/14-03-2023 her document was sent to the complainant and the one with no. prot. C/EXE/1828/19-07-2023 document, with which the latter was once again invited to provide the clarifications requested of him without delay, while at the same time the Authority reminded the complainant of the obligation arising from the GDPR of every person in charge of processing to cooperate with the supervisory authority (see article 31 GDPR), otherwise an administrative fine is threatened (see article 83 par. 4 a' GDPR). The reminder document in question was sent to the email address from which the complained lawyer replied to the Authority's first document, without the Authority receiving any proof of the unsuccessful sending of the email in question, while the aforementioned document was sent to the complained lawyer and by registered letter to the address of his professional seat without ever returning it to the Authority as undelivered to the complainant - its recipient. However, due to the complainant's non-response, the Authority sent the letter with no. prot. C/EXE/3117/05-12-2023 document to the complainant, in order to clarify the facts, so that it becomes possible to investigate the merits of the complaint, forwarding to the latter the response of the complainant and requesting clarifications about the if there is a dispute with the complainant as well as what is the progress of the summons referred to by the latter which appears to have been submitted against the complainant to the Prosecution of Misdemeanors X. In addition, the Authority invited the complainant to provide all relevant documentary evidence, in particular the aforementioned summons and the result on it. In no. prot. C/EIS/9163/27-12-2023 the complainant's response to the Authority, the latter mentions, among other things, the following: First of all, he reiterates his claim that the complainant does not provide him with documents containing his personal data, while pointing out that he has not filed a complaint against the accused lawyer for the violation of his personal data but for embezzlement of documents. He also confirms that his above appeal was rejected, but for legal reasons, while the unauthorized possession by the lawyer of the complainant's documents is confirmed in the context of said rejection, as the latter notes. In particular, it states that the prosecutor's order submitted before the Authority results in the non-establishment of the objective nature of the crime of embezzlement of documents based, among other things, on the access of the defendant to the disputed documents without recourse, as well as in the failure to establish procedural or more general damage to the latter from the non-return of the documents, without, in fact, excluding any civil or disciplinary liability of the lawyer. Furthermore, the complainant notes that the complained-about lawyer never denied his possession of documents with the complainant's personal data. Finally, the complainant states that with the explicit, as mentioned above, withdrawal of his consent as the aforementioned lawyer possesses documents with his personal data, the latter should have deleted them , while the complainant's non-cooperation with the Authority is also sanctioned. Following this, the Authority called for a hearing before the President of the Authority as a one-person body via teleconference on 02-29-2024, with the no. Prot. C/EXE/613/20-02-2024 Summons to the accused lawyer and with the no. Prot. 3C/EXE/614/20-02-2024 Call to the complainant. At the above meeting, the discussion was postponed, due to the complainant's inability to attend, for the meeting of 04-04-2024, for which the letter no. prot. C/EXE/679/29-02-2024 Call to the complainant and the no. Prot. C/EXE/680/29-02-2024 Call to the complainant. On this last date the debate was adjourned from the house. Following this, the Authority invited the parties to a hearing again via teleconference, namely with the no. Prot. C/EXE/1172/17-04-2024 Summoning the accused lawyer and with no. the discussion. Finally, the Authority invited the parties to a hearing again via video conference, namely with the no. Prot. C/EXE/1235/24-04-2024 Summons, the accused lawyer and with the no. Prot. C/EXE/1236/24-04-2024 Summons the complainant, at the meeting of 09-05-2024, at which the complainant attended and developed his views after his lawyer, Ilias Angelopoulos (AM of the Board of Directors of Athens ...), and the accused lawyer [region] X with (AM ...) appeared in person and developed his views. During the said meeting, both parties were granted a deadline to submit memoranda to further support their claims until 05-22-2024. Subsequently, the complainant timely submitted the no. prot.G/EIS/4462/21-05-2024 his memorandum, in which he summarizes the history of the case up to and including its discussion before the Authority, largely restating these allegations, while refuting the complainant's claim of delayed exercise of the right of access , since, as he states, this right was exercised the very next day after the termination of his cooperation with the accused lawyer. The complainant states that by repeatedly requesting, in accordance with the above, the return of the documents concerning him, he revoked the consent he had given to the complained lawyer and as such the latter was obliged to delete the disputed data. Furthermore, he points out that the accused lawyer has never denied that he owns the disputed documents with his personal data, while he notes that the claim that the latter possesses copies and not the originals of the requested documents is falsely presented, insofar as the core of the protection of the of personal data is not related to the type of documents but to the personal data as such of the respective data subject. Finally, complainant 4 also refers to the complainant's non-cooperation with the Authority. The aforementioned lawyer submitted, also within the deadline, the no. Prot. C/EIS/4501/22-05-2024 memorandum, in which abusive exercise of the right of access is invoked on the part of the complainant, as the latter invoked his insult before the Authority in December 2022 while the alleged, as states, a violation of the relevant right took place in November 2019. The complainant invokes article 12 par. 5 para. b of the GDPR on the basis of which he refused to follow up on the complainant's request, since it was manifestly unfounded , excessive and abusively repetitive. Furthermore, the complainant states that after the complainant moved in in 2015 and certainly from the beginning of 2017, the latter sent him by email the necessary documents for the cases he handled as his attorney, while with regard to his earlier cases that he had handled, which have long ago been closed or completed procedurally, he does not comply in physical form any of the copies provided to him by the complainant. He also notes that the criminal decisions in absentia had been served on the complainant, and the certified copy of the relevant decision of the Three-member Misdemeanor Court X had been submitted to the Supreme Court for the appeal. The complainant also states that for a number of cases of the complainant which he handled, the documents in his possession and concerning the latter were either sent to him by the complainant himself, or were retrieved from the website "DIAVGEIA" as public documents. As for the documents that related to two of the complainant's cases, it should be noted that they were already in the hands of the complainant, as he had the right to receive copies of them from the criminal proceedings as a party. Also, the complainant alleges that the complainant did not exercise the rights of erasure and objection which were the only ones appropriate to satisfy the intended purpose and that the selective disclosure to the Lyric Authority of short text messages (sms) by the complainant moves into the realm of breach of privacy of communications. Finally, the complainant expresses his doubt as to whether, in view of the above, there is in practice a scope for satisfying the disputed right of access, as long as the data subject is aware of the material he had sent electronically in an earlier time. 5 The Authority, having taken into account the above, THINKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW 1. Because of the provisions of articles 51 and 55 of the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – hereinafter, GDPR) and article 9 of Law 4624/2019 (FEKA΄137) it follows that the Authority has the competence to supervise the implementation of the provisions of the GDPR, this law and other regulations concerning the protection of the individual from the processing of personal data. With article 5 par. 1 of the GDPR sets out the principles that must govern a processing and with paragraph 2 of this article it is defined that the controller "bears the responsibility and is able to demonstrate compliance with paragraph 1 ("accountability")". As the 1 Authority has judged, with the GDPR a new model of compliance was adopted, the central point of which is the principle of accountability in the context of which the controller is obliged to plan, implement and generally take the necessary measures and policies, in order for the processing of data to be in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions. In addition, the data controller is burdened with the further duty of proving his own compliance with the principles of article 5 par. 1 GDPR. 2. Because according to article 15 par. 1, 3 and 4 of the GDPR "1. The data subject has the right to receive from the controller confirmation as to whether or not the personal data concerning him is being processed and, if this is the case, the right to access the personal data and the following information: a) the purposes of the processing, b) the relevant categories of personal data, c) the recipients or categories of recipients to whom the personal data have been disclosed or are to be disclosed, in particular recipients in third countries or international organizations, d) if possible, the period for which the personal data will be stored or, when this is impossible, the criteria that determine said period, e) the existence of a right to submit a request to the person in charge of processing for 1 1 See Authority decision 26/2019, paragraph 8, available on its website. 6correction or deletion of personal data or restriction of the processing of personal data concerning the subject of the data or the right to object to said processing, f) the right to submit a complaint to a supervisory authority, g) when personal data is not collected by the subject data, any available information about their origin, h) the existence of automated decision-making, including profiling, provided for in Article 22 paragraphs 1 and 4 and, at least in these cases, important information about the logic followed, as well as the significance and intended consequences of said processing for the data subject. 2. […] 3. The controller shall provide a copy of the personal data being processed. […] If the data subject submits the request by electronic means and unless the data subject requests otherwise, the information shall be provided in an electronic format commonly used.4. The right to copy referred to in paragraph 3 does not adversely affect the rights and freedoms of others." These provisions establish the subject's right of access to his personal data. In the context of this right, the subject must have access to personal data that has been collected and concerns him, in order to gain knowledge and be sure of the accuracy and character of the processing of his data and to verify the legality of the processing, and on the other hand to be able to exercise this right freely and in reasonable time . The data controller must provide the possibility of remote access to a secure system through which the data subject obtains direct access to the data concerning him. 3 Furthermore, the Authority firmly accepts that the subject of the data has the right to know whether personal data concerning him is being processed, as well as to receive knowledge of them, without requiring the invocation of a legitimate interest, since this exists and forms the basis of the right access, 2See Recital 63 of the GDPR 3 See also recital 63 of the GDPR and Decision of the Authority 23/2020. 4Bl. in particular, Authority decisions 22/2023, 32/2019, 144/2017 195/2014 193/2014 and 75/2011, available on the Authority's website. 7 i.e. the right of the data subject to obtain knowledge of information that concerns him and has been registered in a file kept by the controller, so that the basic principle of the law for the protection of personal data, which consists in the transparency of the processing as a condition of any further control by the subject of its legality, is carried out . Likewise, it is not required to invoke the reasons why the data subject wishes to exercise the right of access. Besides, the obligation to satisfy the right of access is universal, i.e. it concerns all the information concerning the subject of the data and furthermore, it does not depend on the invocation of the reasons for exercising the right. Consequently, the satisfaction of the right does not depend on a previous judgment of the data controller as to whether or not the exercise of the right is justified. 3. Because according to article 12 GDPR "1. The controller shall take appropriate measures to provide the data subject […] with any communication under Articles 15 […] 2. The controller shall facilitate the exercise of the data subjects’ rights provided for in Articles 15 […] 3 The controller shall provide the data subject with information on the action taken pursuant to articles 15 to 22 without delay and in any case within one month of receipt of the request. This deadline may be extended by a further two months if necessary, taking into account the complexity of the request and the number of requests. The data controller shall inform the data subject of said extension within one month of receipt of the request, as well as of the reasons for the delay. […] 4. If the data controller does not act on the data subject's request, the data controller shall inform the data subject of the 5 See indicative Decisions of the Authority 22/2023, 2/2020, 23/2020, 16/2017, 98/2014, 149/2014, 72/2013 and 71/2013. 6 See EDPB, Guidelines 01/2022 on data subjects' rights – Right of access, Version 2.0, adopted on 28 March 2023, Ch. 61, par. 167, p 52, https://edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2023-04/edpb_guidelines_202201_data_subject_rights_access_v2_en.pdf. 7 See Decision of the Authority 16/2017. 8 See regarding Authority Decision 1/2005, by which it was judged that the data controller must respond to the data subject's access request without vagueness and evasion citing reasons unrelated to the satisfaction of the right of access. See also Authority Decision 16/2017. 8 data, without delay and at the latest within one month of receiving the request, for the reasons why it did not act and for the possibility of submitting a complaint to a supervisory authority and bringing legal action. 5. The information provided in accordance with articles 13 and 14 and each announcement as well as all actions taken pursuant to articles 15 to 22 and article 34 are provided free of charge. If the data subject's requests are manifestly unfounded or excessive, in particular due to their repetitive nature, the controller may either: a) impose the payment of a reasonable fee, taking into account the administrative costs of providing the information or notification or carrying out the requested action, or b) refuse to proceed request. The controller bears the burden of proving the manifestly unfounded or excessive nature of the request." 4. Because according to article 5 of the Lawyers' Code (law 4194/2013) it is provided that: "The lawyer in the performance of his duties: a) Defends the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and its Additional Protocols , the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union, as well as all international and European conventions on human rights. b) Follows the traditions of the defense function and the rules of ethics, as they have been formed historically during the practice of law and formulated in the Code. c) He observes confidentiality, inviolable in favor of his principal, for what he entrusted to him or that came to his knowledge during the exercise of the legal function. d) He is bound by the content of the order he accepted, unless a specific act, action or omission in the context of the order contradicts his duty. e) Maintains the freedom to handle the case, is not subject to instructions and orders contrary to the law and incompatible with the interest of his principal". 5. Because according to the provision of Article 31 of the GDPR it is provided that "The controller and the processor and, as the case may be, their representatives cooperate, upon request, with the supervisory authority for the exercise of its duties". This provision introduces an independent general obligation of each data controller to cooperate with the supervisory authority, when a relevant request is submitted in the exercise of the tasks assigned to it by the European legislator, while the violation 9 of its fulfillment automatically entails the imposition of the administrative fine of article 83 par. 4 item. 1 GDPR. It is pointed out that this obligation together with the principle of accountability of article 5 paragraph 2 of the GDPR strengthens the role of the supervisory authority in the exercise of its powers towards the realization of the purpose of the effective application of the personal data protection rules. 9 6. Because in the case examined above, it appears from the data in the file that the complainant exercised the right of access to data concerning him in front of the complained lawyer as data controller appropriately and clearly already on 27-11-2019 with a relevant SMS , with which he requested the return of his file, while with the 27-04-2020 e-mail message that he also sent to the complainant, he requested the granting of all the files that he has handled, as his legal representative, and which concern him. The last request was repeated with the out-of-court Statements - Protests - Nuisances served on the defendant on 30-09-2020 and on 22-06-2021. Given that the content of the above-mentioned requests submitted to the Authority leaves no doubt or ambiguity regarding the requested documents, the claim of the complainant regarding the delivery of the contentious requests in such a way that an appropriate response is not practically possible is rejected as unfounded in them. In any case, it is pointed out that the right of access is not required to necessarily wear a specific type or to be exercised in a solemn manner.11 7. Because, further, from the examination of all the elements of the file it does not appear that the accused lawyer responded in any way to the above access requests made and brought before him by the complainant, as detailed above, although there is no financial pending after the revocation of the latter's order to the complainant. However, the complained-about lawyer had to, pursuant to the provision of paragraph 4 of article 12 of the GDPR, inform the latter, without delay and at the latest within one month of receiving the request, of the reasons for the 9See Decisions of the Authority 37/2022, sc. 4 and 28/2022, sc. 8. 10 See pp. 2-3 of the complainant's memorandum submitted with the hearing. 11 See Decision of the Authority 26/2021 sc. 11 as well as 36/2021, s. 7, available on the website www.dpa.gr. 10 who does not act as well as for the possibility of submitting a complaint to the competent supervisory authority and bringing legal action. In particular, the complained-about lawyer invokes before the Authority the excessive, unfounded and abusive nature of the complainant's request, 12 in any case, however, according to the aforementioned, he should have responded to the data subject in a timely manner justifying his non-response to the access request made before him in the judgment of the above character of the request for which, in fact, he bears the burden of proof in accordance with paragraph 5 of the aforementioned article 12 of the GDPR, regardless of the fact that the complainant renewed his request, and with out-of-court invitations, due to the failure of the complainant to send any response, even a negative one. Besides, the complainant's claim that he does not keep documents from previous cases of the complainant that he had handled as his attorney, has no influence on the case under consideration because the data controller, even when he does not keep a file with the subject's data, is not exempted from the obligation to inform the data subject in this regard by answering even in the negative.13 Furthermore, the complainant states that the data subject already had access to some of the exclusive information he requested or could obtain it from other sources, including the case files for cases in which he was a party. However, the above allegations of the complainant in no way negate the obligation he had to respond to the complainant, in accordance with what was mentioned above, while the fact that the data subject may have access from another source, such as indicatively from a case file, to the data that has requested from a specific data controller and which concern him, also does not affect the data controller's obligation to satisfy the relevant right of access exercised before him. This, as any other source or file is not identical to the file kept by the accused lawyer. 4 12 See indicatively p. 4 of the memorandum submitted with the hearing of the accused. 13 See SC 2627/2017, sk. 7 and those with no. 61/2021, 2/2020, sc. 1 and 43/2019 Decisions of the Authority. 14 Cf. in this regard Decision of the Authority 26/2021, s. 14, while cf. even Authority decision 28/2022 sc. 6 regarding the fact that the provision of information to the competent judicial authorities does not justify the non-compliance of the data controller with his independent obligations deriving from the institutional framework 118. Because, according to what is stated above, the complained-about lawyer should have responded within the deadline by sending the requested details of the complainant that he had or by informing him even only of the fact that he does not keep data concerning him in his file or by informing the data subject of the reasons for which he did not act, as mentioned above, as well as for the possibility of submitting a complaint to a supervisory authority and taking legal action. However, from the facts and data brought to the attention of the Authority, it was not proven that the right of access was satisfied within the deadlines provided for by the GDPR or that the complainant was informed of the reasons for the justified, as previously stated, non-satisfaction, nor was it delayed fulfillment of the relevant obligation. Therefore, a violation of Article 15 of the GDPR in combination with the provision of Article 12, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the GDPR is established. 9. Because, moreover, from the above facts, it follows that the data controller did not show any willingness to cooperate with the Authority by providing clarifications regarding the complaint he was referring to. In particular, he was indifferent and did not take care to answer clearly the specific questions first raised by the Authority with no. prot. C/EXE/666/14-03-2023 her document. In particular, he sent a note that did not answer any of the Authority's questions and, by extension, obstacles arose in the further investigation of the substantive validity of the complaint in question. Furthermore, the complainant did not send any reply to no. prot. C/EXE/1828/19-07-2023 document of the Authority, with which he was summoned to provide the necessary clarifications without delay, and which also reminded the deriving from article 31 of the GDPR the obligation owed by the complainant. As mentioned above, the last above-mentioned document was sent to the email address from which the complainant replied to the Authority's first document, without the Authority receiving any proof of unsuccessful sending of the e-mail in question, while the above document was sent to the complained lawyer and by registered letter to the address of his professional seat without ever being returned to the Authority as not delivered to the data protection and consequently the authority of the Authority to deal with the complained violation of rights. 12 defendant - its recipient. In view of the above refusal of cooperation of the complainant, the Authority, in an additional effort to clarify the facts in order to enable an effective investigation of the merits of the submitted complaint, sent it with no. prot. C/EXE/3117/05-12-2023 document to the complainant this time requesting clarifications and relevant documents for the investigation of what the complainant vaguely mentioned about the dispute between them, and the allegations of the complainant about alleged application by the Authority of "the principle of non-reversal of the burden of proof" 15 due to the complainant's search for additional information. With these data, the complainant violated his obligation arising from the above-mentioned article 31 of the GDPR, which is self-contained and its violation entails the imposition of the administrative fine of article 83 par. 4 item 1 of the GDPR.

10. Because, according to what is mentioned in the previous considerations, it follows no

satisfaction of disputed access rights repeatedly exercised by

the complainant and, therefore, has been documented, as detailed above

mentioned, violation of article 12 par. 3 and 4 GDPR as to the right

access which even had a sequential character, as from 27.11.2019 and

27.04.2020, when the access rights in question were exercised, until

date of the hearing before the Authority, no response is received from the

side of the accused lawyer, pursuant to the above provisions.

11. Because, according to the GDPR (Rep. Sk. 148), in order to strengthen the enforcement of
rules of this Regulation, sanctions, including administrative ones

fines, should be imposed for any violation of the Regulation, additionally or

instead of the appropriate measures imposed by the supervisory authority pursuant to

this Regulation.

15
See p. 3-4 of the written statement of the accused, where the following are mentioned: "It is also worth
it should be noted that with the above No. Prot.: 3117/05-12-2023 its document the APDPH utilized the content
of with no. first C/EIS/2671/11-04-2023 of our response to the Authority and essentially implemented in practice
the principle of non-reversal of the burden of proof in cases of complaints, asking him
complainant to provide additional information based on what is expressly stated in our
answer".
16 Indicatively, it is noted that the Authority with decision 33/2021 imposed an administrative fine for the independent
violation of the provision of article 31 GDPR.

1312. Because, based on the above, the Authority considers that there is a case to exercise against

the article 58 par. 2 of the GDPR its corrective powers in relation to those established

violations and that it should, based on the circumstances established, be imposed, according to
application of the provision of article 58 par. 2 pcs. i' of the GDPR, effective, proportional

and dissuasive administrative fine according to article 83 of the GDPR, both to

restoring compliance, as well as punishing illegal behavior.

Furthermore, the Authority took into account the criteria for measuring the fine defined in

article 83 par. 2 of the GDPR, as well as paragraphs 5 sec. b' and 4 sec. a', respectively,

of the same article for each of the above violations that apply to
present case, the Guidelines for implementation and determination

administrative fines for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679 issued on 03-

10-2017 by Article 29 Working Party (WP 253) and Guidelines

04/2022 of the European Data Protection Board for the calculation of

administrative fines under the General Regulation, as well as the actual ones

data of the case under consideration and in particular the criteria listed below.
A. For the violation of the provisions of articles 15 par. 1 of the GDPR in conjunction with

provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4 of article 12 of the GDPR:

i. The fact that the violation of the legality of the processing falls under

provision of par. 5 of article 83 GDPR
ii. The fact that the complainant did not satisfy the right of access which

the complainant applied according to article 15 par. 1 GDPR, nor did he do any

action pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 4 of article 12 of the GDPR by

in 2019 until the hearing before the Authority

iii. The fact of the long duration of non-satisfaction of the right

access despite the Authority's intervention.
iv. The fact that it does not appear that any of the requested personal data

of the complainant includes personal data of special categories

v. The fact that the violation in this case affected only one (1) natural person

as a subject of personal data in relation to his satisfaction

right of access.

14 vi. The fact that the incident appears to be isolated, as it is not

a sanction imposed by the Authority on the complained lawyer for similar

violation in the past, while no malice on the part of the accused is proven
lawyer for the aforementioned violation.

vii. The fact that the accused lawyer did not proceed with any

action as to disputed access rights exercised by

complainants, even after the intervention of the Authority.

viii. The fact that from the data brought to the attention of the Authority and based on

which found the violation of the GDPR, the controller does not
obtained a financial benefit, without causing material damage to the complainant.

ix. The fact that the violation of the provisions regarding the rights of

of subjects falls under, in accordance with the provisions of article 83 par. 5 sec. b'

GDPR, in the highest prescribed category of the rating system
administrative fines.

x. The gross income of the complainant, as derived from the

form E3 of AADE (statement of financial data from business

activity) for the tax year 2022 that he presented before it

Principle.
B. For the violation of the obligation to cooperate with the Authority according to Article 31 of the GDPR,

which falls under the category of approx. a' of paragraph 4 of article 83 of the GDPR as

to the grading system of administrative fines:

i. The continuing nature of non-cooperation with his Authority

accused lawyer, who, in the first of the two clarifications

documents sent to him by the Authority, as detailed above, no
provided adequate answers while the second did not send any answer.

ii. The fact that the detected violation is carried out by a data controller

bearing the status of a lawyer.

iii) The fact that, however, the particular violation constitutes an individual one

case.

15 iv) The gross income of the complainant, as it arises from the

form E3 of the AADE (statement of financial data from business activity)

for the tax year 2022 that he presented to the Authority.

13. Because, based on the above, the Authority decides that they should be imposed on

denounced lawyer as data controller referred to in the decree

administrative sanctions, which are considered proportional to the gravity of the violations.

FOR THESE REASONS
The Authority

a) Finds that the accused lawyer violated his right of access

of article 15 of the GDPR in conjunction with article 12 par. 3 and 4 of the GDPR according to

in detail as stated above, and therefore imposes on him an administrative fine amounting to

seven hundred (€700) euros, according to article 58 par. 2 pcs. Ith GDPR.
b) Finds that the accused lawyer violated article 31 of the GDPR, according to

in detail as stated above, and therefore imposes an administrative fine amounting to

seven hundred (€700) euros, according to article 58 par. 2 pcs. Ith GDPR.

The President The Secretary

Konstantinos Menudakos Irini Papageorgopoulou

16