HDPA (Greece) - 1/2022

HDPA (Greece) - 1/2021
Authority:	HDPA (Greece)
Jurisdiction:	Greece
Relevant Law:	Article 4(1) GDPR Article 9 GDPR Article 10 GDPR Article 12(3) GDPR Article 15 GDPR Article 58(2) GDPR Article 83(2) GDPR Article 83(5)(a) GDPR Article 83(5)(b) 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 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.

English Summary

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, 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.

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 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.

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