US Split - Us I-2033/2024-4
From GDPRhub
| US Split - Us I-2033/2024-4 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | US Split (Croatia) |
| Jurisdiction: | Croatia |
| Relevant Law: | Article 15 GDPR Article 103(1) ZUS Article 106(1)(2) |
| Decided: | 19.02.2025 |
| Published: | 09.03.2025 |
| Parties: | A AZOP |
| National Case Number/Name: | Us I-2033/2024-4 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | |
| Appeal from: | |
| Appeal to: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | Croatian |
| Original Source: | Odluke Sudova RH (in Croatian) |
| Initial Contributor: | leeve |
A court held, that a DPA failed to respond to a data subject's complaint in time and only after the data subject initiated administrative proceedings. The court suspended these proceedings and ordered the DPA to pay €1,250 in administrative dispute costs.
English Summary
Facts
The data subject submitted an access request under Article 15 GDPR to a social services authority (the Croatian Institute for Social Work, the controller), seeking full information about the processing of his personal data. Despite the legal deadline, the controller did not respond or provide the requested data before the lawsuit was filed.
After receiving no response, the data subject filed a complaint with DPA on 13 June 2024.
The DPA issued a decision upholding the complaint and ordering the controller to comply on 29 August 2024 only after the data subject initiated an administrative court procedure on 21 August 2024 against the DPA for failure to act (administrative silence).
Holding
The Court held that if a controller fails to provide full access to personal data in response to an Article 15 GDPR request, this constitutes a violation, and the DPA must issue a decision within the legal deadline or face judicial review for "administrative silence" (inactivity).
Additionally, the court held that when the DPA issues a decision during litigation that fully satisfies the claimant’s request, the administrative dispute must be dismissed under national law and the claimant is entitled to reimbursement of legal costs — in this case, €1,250.
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 Croatian original. Please refer to the Croatian original for more details.
R J E Š E N J E Administrative Court in Split, by judge Danijela ÿipÿiÿ Buzov, single judge, and Vesna Maslov, recorder, in the administrative dispute of the plaintiff Aÿ, [address], OIB: [personal identification number], represented by proxy Josip Giljanoviÿ, attorney in Split, Put Skalica 35, against the defendant Agency for Personal Data Protection, Zagreb, Selska cesta 136, OIB: 28454963989, due to the silence of the administration, 19 February 2025. U I M E R E P U B L I K E H R V A T S K E 1. Before this court on August 21, 2024, the plaintiff initiated an administrative dispute against the defendant for failure to issue a decision on the plaintiff's request for a determination of a violation of the right to protection of personal data, which was sent to the defendant on June 13, 2024. REPUBLIC OF CROATIA Split, Put Supavla 1 ADMINISTRATIVE COURT IN SPLIT Business number: Us I-2033/2024-4 II. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the amount of EUR 1,250.00 as compensation for the costs of the administrative dispute, within 15 days of receipt of the final decision. Explanation 2. In its response to the lawsuit, the defendant essentially states that it decided on the plaintiff's request for a determination of a violation of the right to protection of personal data by decision Class UP/I-009-01/24-13/3, Reg. No.: 567-04-02/05-24-1 of August 9, 2024, which founded the plaintiff's request for a determination of a violation of the right to protection of personal data, that the shipment was sent via Croatian Post dd, which received the shipment in question on August 12, 2024, and that the plaintiff received it on August 29, 2024. Furthermore, that point 3 of the operative part of the cited decision of August 9 I. The administrative dispute is suspended. Given that the defendant has not decided on the plaintiff's request in question by the time the lawsuit is filed, that is, that it has not delivered to the plaintiff any decision that may have been made regarding the plaintiff's request in question, the plaintiff proposes to issue a judgment ordering the defendant to decide, within 60 days of delivery of the judgment, on the plaintiff's request for a determination of a violation of the right to protection of personal data, which was sent to the defendant on June 13, 2024, and to deliver the decision in question to the plaintiff, and to reimburse him for the costs of the administrative dispute. r i j e š i o j e 5. Considering the above, i.e. that in the specific case, the aforementioned decision of the defendant Class: UP/I-009-01/24-13/3, Reg. No.: 567- 04-02/05-24- 1 of August 9, 2024, decided on the plaintiff's claim in question, and since the defendant was obliged not only to make a decision on the plaintiff's claim within the statutory deadline, but was also obliged to duly deliver that decision to the plaintiff within the statutory deadline and before the moment of seeking administrative-judicial protection, which is not the case here (given that the claim was filed on August 21, 2024, and the defendant's decision in question was delivered to the plaintiff on August 29, 2024), the court finds that the defendant acted in full during the proceedings before the court in accordance with the claim filed for the so-called the silence of the administration, i.e. decided on the request in question, which is why the prerequisites for the suspension of the administrative dispute were met in the specific case and it was necessary, based on the provisions of Article 106, paragraph 1, item 2, in conjunction with Article 103, paragraph 1 of the ZUS, to resolve it as under point I of the dictum. 6. Furthermore, Article 144, paragraph 1 of the ZUS stipulates that the costs of a dispute shall consist of justified expenses incurred during or in connection with the dispute. Paragraph 2 stipulates that the costs of a dispute shall also include the remuneration for the work of lawyers and other persons entitled to statutory compensation. Paragraph 3 stipulates that the value of the subject matter of the dispute shall be deemed to be inestimable. 4. According to the provision of Article 103, paragraph 1 of the Administrative Disputes Act (Official Gazette, No. 36/2024; hereinafter: ZUS), if the defendant fully complies with the claim during the dispute, the court will suspend the dispute. of the General Data Protection Regulation in relation to the request submitted on 8 June 2024, and point 4 of the operative part ordered the Croatian Institute for Social Work as the controller to inform the respondent of the action referred to in point 3 of the aforementioned decision within 30 days of the date of receipt of the decision. Further to the request, the Croatian Institute for Social Work informed the respondent that it had received the decision Class UP/I-009-01/24-13/3, Reg. No.: 567-04-02/05-24-1 on 14 August 2024 and that it had acted on it, that is, that it had provided the respondent with all information related to the processing of his personal data. Taking into account all of the above, and considering that the defendant decided on the plaintiff's request and issued the decision Class UP/I-009-01/24-13/3, Reg. No.: 567-04-02/05-24-1 of August 9, 2024, and that the Croatian Institute for Social Work, as the controller of the processing, acted in accordance with the order from the above-mentioned decision, the defendant proposes that the court suspend the dispute in its entirety / reject the claim. of the General Data Protection Regulation in relation to the request submitted on 8 June 2024 (point 3 of the operative part); a period of 30 days has been set for the action referred to in point 3 of the operative part, and the Croatian Institute for Social Work Zagreb, as the controller, must notify the defendant of the action taken within the specified period (point 4 of the operative part). 3. From the decision of the defendant Class: UP/I-009-01/24-13/3, Reg. No.: 567-04-02/05-24- 1 of 9 August 2024, which is attached to the file of the administrative body, it is clear that the same request for establishing the right to a violation of the right to protection of personal data of the Aÿ, here the plaintiff, is well-founded (point 1 of the operative part); it is established that the failure to provide all information relating to the processing of the plaintiff's personal data by the Croatian Institute for Social Work Zagreb, Ul. Ivana Dežmana 6, has resulted in a violation of Article 15 of the General Regulation for the Protection of Personal Data (point 2 of the operative part); the Croatian Institute for Social Work Zagreb, Ul. Ivana Dežmana 6 is ordered to provide the plaintiff with all information relating to the processing of his personal data / enable the exercise of the right to access his personal data in accordance with Article 15. August 2024, the Croatian Institute for Social Work was ordered to enable the plaintiff to exercise the right to access his personal data in accordance with Article 15. 7. The provision of Article 147, paragraph 6 of the ZUS stipulates that if the dispute is discontinued after the defendant has acted upon the claim, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the costs of the dispute. Machine Translated by Google DNA: - to the plaintiff, through an attorney INSTRUCTION ON LEGAL REMEDY An appeal against this decision is allowed within 15 days from the date of receipt of the written copy thereof. The appeal shall be submitted in a sufficient number of copies for the court and all parties to the dispute, through this court, in writing, to the High Administrative Court of the Republic of Croatia (Article 106, paragraph 5 and Article 148, paragraph 5 of the ZUS). In Split, February 19, 2025. Danijela ÿipÿiÿ Buzov NUTKI NJ A 8. Pursuant to the above-cited provisions of Articles 144 and 147, paragraph 6 of the ZUS, and Tbr. 27, tbr. 52 and 54 of the Tariff on fees and reimbursement of expenses for the work of lawyers (Official Gazette, No.: 138/2023 – hereinafter the Tariff), the plaintiff should have been granted as a justified expense the listed cost of drafting the lawsuit in the amount of EUR 1,000.00 increased by the corresponding VAT (25%) in the amount of EUR 250.00, which amounts to a total of EUR 1,250.00 together with the corresponding default interest. Accordingly, it was decided as under point II. of the dictum. - in the file. - to the defendant, with the return of the administrative body's files upon finality.
