AZOP - Decision of 11th August 2020

From GDPRhub
Revision as of 15:54, 14 April 2021 by Msm (talk | contribs) (Msm moved page AZOP - - to AZOP - Decision of 11th August 2020)
(diff) โ† Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision โ†’ (diff)
AZOP - -
Authority: AZOP (Croatia)
Jurisdiction: Croatia
Relevant Law: Article 15(3) GDPR
Customer Home Credit Act
Type: Complaint
Outcome: Upheld
Published: 11.08.2020
Fine: None
Parties: n/a
National Case Number/Name: -
European Case Law Identifier: -
Appeal: n/a
Original Language(s): Croatian
Original Source: (in HR)
Initial Contributor: Karlo Paljug

The Croatian Personal Data Protection Agency (AZOP) has decided that Raiffeisen bank was in violation of the GDPR by asking its clients to pay approx. 200 HRK (approx. 30 EUR) for delivering documentation regarding a home loan. The client needed it to initiate proceedings for reimbursement of overcharged debt. The Bank says it will not give up its current practice.

English Summary[edit | edit source]

Facts[edit | edit source]

In 2007, the party has arranged a home loan in CHF in Raiffeisen ban. After the problem with CHF, he has initiated proceedings for reimbursement of overcharged debt. To initiate it, he needed whole documentation of the home loan. He has filed the request and the Bank has charged, in accordance with its pricelist 197 HRK for delivering whole documentation.

Dispute[edit | edit source]

The Bank justified their conduct by saying "the preparation and delivery of the contract documents are regulated by special regulation on consumer credit" and that this situation does not fall within the scope of the GDPR. Also what was pointed out is that the bank has certain administrative costs in collecting and copying documentation.

Holding[edit | edit source]

AZOP believes that the bank cannot charge for personal documentation of the client, because the customer must have access to its personal data. It is stated in article 15 of the GDPR that the user has the right to "access personal data relating to him" at any time. And the bank can charge a "reasonable fee" only if the user requests additional copies. Charging a fee to the client is not a facilitating mechanism and the bank is obliged to submit documentation.

Comment[edit | edit source]

In April, AZOP fined one bank with 100.000 HRK (approx. 13,500 EUR) over a very similar issue.

Also, this decision raises the question, what is with all other documentation that has personal data of a client and for which banks are charging fees?

Further Resources[edit | edit source]

Share blogs or news articles here!

English Machine Translation of the Decision[edit | edit source]

The decision below is a machine translation of the Croatian original. Please refer to the Croatian original for more details.