Difference between revisions of "Comissioner - 11.17.001.007.219"

From GDPRhub
(Created page with "{{DPAdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Cyprus |DPA-BG-Color=background-color:#ffffff; |DPAlogo=LogoCY.jpg |DPA_Abbrevation=Comissioner |DPA_With_Country=Comissioner (Cyprus) |Case_N...")
 
m (Visual Edit (Title))
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Commissioner - 11.17.001.007.219}}
 
{{DPAdecisionBOX
 
{{DPAdecisionBOX
  
Line 4: Line 5:
 
|DPA-BG-Color=background-color:#ffffff;
 
|DPA-BG-Color=background-color:#ffffff;
 
|DPAlogo=LogoCY.jpg
 
|DPAlogo=LogoCY.jpg
|DPA_Abbrevation=Comissioner
+
|DPA_Abbrevation=Commissioner
|DPA_With_Country=Comissioner (Cyprus)
+
|DPA_With_Country=Commissioner (Cyprus)
  
 
|Case_Number_Name=11.17.001.007.219
 
|Case_Number_Name=11.17.001.007.219
Line 56: Line 57:
 
The Cypriot DPO held that the footage from a CCTV system of an individual shall be handled as subjects to Article 4(1) of GDPR Regulation. The meaning of that conclusion is that the Data Controller is obligated to provide access to the affected individual.
 
The Cypriot DPO held that the footage from a CCTV system of an individual shall be handled as subjects to Article 4(1) of GDPR Regulation. The meaning of that conclusion is that the Data Controller is obligated to provide access to the affected individual.
  
== English Summary ==
+
==English Summary==
  
=== Facts ===
+
===Facts===
 
The Complainer had an accident outside a store, and an Action has been filed subsequently. Access to the video footage records has been requested from the Complainer’s lawyer, but as an out-of-court procedure and before any court order to produce relevant evidence to the trial.
 
The Complainer had an accident outside a store, and an Action has been filed subsequently. Access to the video footage records has been requested from the Complainer’s lawyer, but as an out-of-court procedure and before any court order to produce relevant evidence to the trial.
  
Line 65: Line 66:
 
The Cypriot DPO intervened and informed the Company for his erred in law. Article 55(3) suspends the competence of supervisory authorities, not the obligations of legal subjects. The Company’s reaction was the forwarding a small extract of the footage from only one camera, when more cameras were available too, at least under the views of the claims made by the Complainer. The Complainer still was feeling dissatisfaction and re-asked for the support of the Cypriot DPO.
 
The Cypriot DPO intervened and informed the Company for his erred in law. Article 55(3) suspends the competence of supervisory authorities, not the obligations of legal subjects. The Company’s reaction was the forwarding a small extract of the footage from only one camera, when more cameras were available too, at least under the views of the claims made by the Complainer. The Complainer still was feeling dissatisfaction and re-asked for the support of the Cypriot DPO.
  
=== Dispute ===
+
===Dispute===
  
  
=== Holding ===
+
===Holding===
 
One of the Controller’s allegation was that his CCTV system maintains footage only for one month and only that particular extract has been separated and that because it was also requested from their lawyer and their insurance partner, immediately after the action has been notified to them. The rest of the footage remained to the CCTV system until the automated clean-up.  
 
One of the Controller’s allegation was that his CCTV system maintains footage only for one month and only that particular extract has been separated and that because it was also requested from their lawyer and their insurance partner, immediately after the action has been notified to them. The rest of the footage remained to the CCTV system until the automated clean-up.  
  
Line 75: Line 76:
 
When the Cypriot DPO has been convinced for those allegations, held that, in these circumstances, the Complainer enjoyed her right of access, even if she received only an extract of the footage.   
 
When the Cypriot DPO has been convinced for those allegations, held that, in these circumstances, the Complainer enjoyed her right of access, even if she received only an extract of the footage.   
  
== Comment ==
+
==Comment==
 
''Share your comments here!''
 
''Share your comments here!''
  
== Further Resources ==
+
==Further Resources==
 
''Share blogs or news articles here!''
 
''Share blogs or news articles here!''
  
== English Machine Translation of the Decision ==
+
==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.
 
The decision below is a machine translation of the Greek original. Please refer to the Greek original for more details.
  
Line 87: Line 88:
  
 
</pre>
 
</pre>
 +
{{DEFAULTSORT:Commissioner_-_11.17.001.007.219}}

Latest revision as of 12:00, 29 July 2020

Commissioner - 11.17.001.007.219
LogoCY.jpg
Authority: Commissioner (Cyprus)
Jurisdiction: Cyprus
Relevant Law: Article 4(1) GDPR
Article 12(3) GDPR
Article 15 GDPR
Article 53(3) GDPR
Type: Complaint
Outcome: Other Outcome
Decided: 08.07.2020
Published: n/a
Fine: None
Parties: Pop Life Electric Shops Ltd
National Case Number/Name: 11.17.001.007.219
European Case Law Identifier: n/a
Appeal: Not appealed
Original Language(s): Greek
Original Source: Commissioner for Personal Data Protection (Cyprus) (in EL)
Initial Contributor: Panayotis Yannakas

The Cypriot DPO held that the footage from a CCTV system of an individual shall be handled as subjects to Article 4(1) of GDPR Regulation. The meaning of that conclusion is that the Data Controller is obligated to provide access to the affected individual.

English Summary[edit | edit source]

Facts[edit | edit source]

The Complainer had an accident outside a store, and an Action has been filed subsequently. Access to the video footage records has been requested from the Complainer’s lawyer, but as an out-of-court procedure and before any court order to produce relevant evidence to the trial.

Initially, the Company, as the Data Controller, has rejected the above request on the ground that if a trial is taking place, then Article 55(3) of GDPR is triggered. The Company believed that this article suspends the obligation to provide access to personal data.

The Cypriot DPO intervened and informed the Company for his erred in law. Article 55(3) suspends the competence of supervisory authorities, not the obligations of legal subjects. The Company’s reaction was the forwarding a small extract of the footage from only one camera, when more cameras were available too, at least under the views of the claims made by the Complainer. The Complainer still was feeling dissatisfaction and re-asked for the support of the Cypriot DPO.

Dispute[edit | edit source]

Holding[edit | edit source]

One of the Controller’s allegation was that his CCTV system maintains footage only for one month and only that particular extract has been separated and that because it was also requested from their lawyer and their insurance partner, immediately after the action has been notified to them. The rest of the footage remained to the CCTV system until the automated clean-up.

The Cypriot DPO asked for corroborating evidence about the allegation that the CCTV system save the footage only for that duration. The confirmation came by a letter from the Company who has installed the CCTV system in the store.

When the Cypriot DPO has been convinced for those allegations, held that, in these circumstances, the Complainer enjoyed her right of access, even if she received only an extract of the footage.

Comment[edit | edit source]

Share your comments here!

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 Greek original. Please refer to the Greek original for more details.