Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (Italy) - 9283014: Difference between revisions

From GDPRhub
(Created page with "{{DPAdecisionBOX <!--Information about the DPA--> |Jurisdiction=Italy |DPA-BG-Color= |DPAlogo=logoIT.png |DPA_Abbrevation= |DPA_With_Country=Garante per la protezione dei dat...")
 
No edit summary
Line 9: Line 9:


<!--Information about the decision-->
<!--Information about the decision-->
|Case_Number_Name=9283121
|Case_Number_Name=9283014
|ECLI=
 
|Original_Source_Name_1=Garante per la protezione dei dati personali
|Original_Source_Link_1=https://www.garanteprivacy.it/web/guest/home/docweb/-/docweb-display/docweb/9283121
|Original_Source_Language_1=Italian
|Original_Source_Language__Code_1=IT
 
|Original_Source_Name_2=
|Original_Source_Link_2=
|Original_Source_Language_2=
|Original_Source_Language_Code_2=
 
|Type=Complaint
|Outcome=Upheld
|Date_Decided= 6. 02. 2020
|Date_Published=n/a
|Year=2020
|Fine=20 000
|Currency=EUR
 
<!--Information about the applied law-->
|GDPR_Article_1=Article 5(1)(a) GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 5 GDPR#1a
|GDPR_Article_2=
|GDPR_Article_Link_2=
|GDPR_Article_3=
|GDPR_Article_Link_3=
|GDPR_Article_4=
|GDPR_Article_Link_4=
|GDPR_Article_5=
|GDPR_Article_Link_5=
|GDPR_Article_6=
|GDPR_Article_Link_6=
|GDPR_Article_7=
|GDPR_Article_Link_7=
|GDPR_Article_8=
|GDPR_Article_Link_8=
|GDPR_Article_9=
|GDPR_Article_Link_9=
|GDPR_Article_10=
|GDPR_Article_Link_10=
|GDPR_Article_11=
|GDPR_Article_Link_11=
|GDPR_Article_12=
|GDPR_Article_Link_12=
|GDPR_Article_13=
|GDPR_Article_Link_13=
|GDPR_Article_14=
|GDPR_Article_Link_14=
|GDPR_Article_15=
|GDPR_Article_Link_15=
|GDPR_Article_16=
|GDPR_Article_Link_16=
|GDPR_Article_17=
|GDPR_Article_Link_17=
|GDPR_Article_18=
|GDPR_Article_Link_18=
|GDPR_Article_19=
|GDPR_Article_Link_19=
|GDPR_Article_20=
|GDPR_Article_Link_20=
 
|EU_Law_Name_1=
|EU_Law_Link_1=
|EU_Law_Name_2=
|EU_Law_Link_2=
|EU_Law_Name_3=
|EU_Law_Link_3=
|EU_Law_Name_4=
|EU_Law_Link_4=
|EU_Law_Name_5=
|EU_Law_Link_5=
|EU_Law_Name_6=
|EU_Law_Link_6=
|EU_Law_Name_7=
|EU_Law_Link_7=
|EU_Law_Name_8=
|EU_Law_Link_8=
|EU_Law_Name_9=
|EU_Law_Link_9=
|EU_Law_Name_10=
|EU_Law_Link_10=
|EU_Law_Name_11=
|EU_Law_Link_11=
|EU_Law_Name_12=
|EU_Law_Link_12=
|EU_Law_Name_13=
|EU_Law_Link_13=
|EU_Law_Name_14=
|EU_Law_Link_14=
|EU_Law_Name_15=
|EU_Law_Link_15=
|EU_Law_Name_16=
|EU_Law_Link_16=
|EU_Law_Name_17=
|EU_Law_Link_17=
|EU_Law_Name_18=
|EU_Law_Link_18=
|EU_Law_Name_19=
|EU_Law_Link_19=
|EU_Law_Name_20=
|EU_Law_Link_20=
 
|National_Law_Name_1=
|National_Law_Link_1=
|National_Law_Name_2=
|National_Law_Link_2=
|National_Law_Name_3=
|National_Law_Link_3=
|National_Law_Name_4=
|National_Law_Link_4=
|National_Law_Name_5=
|National_Law_Link_5=
|National_Law_Name_6=
|National_Law_Link_6=
|National_Law_Name_7=
|National_Law_Link_7=
|National_Law_Name_8=
|National_Law_Link_8=
|National_Law_Name_9=
|National_Law_Link_9=
|National_Law_Name_10=
|National_Law_Link_10=
|National_Law_Name_11=
|National_Law_Link_11=
|National_Law_Name_12=
|National_Law_Link_12=
|National_Law_Name_13=
|National_Law_Link_13=
|National_Law_Name_14=
|National_Law_Link_14=
|National_Law_Name_15=
|National_Law_Link_15=
|National_Law_Name_16=
|National_Law_Link_16=
|National_Law_Name_17=
|National_Law_Link_17=
|National_Law_Name_18=
|National_Law_Link_18=
|National_Law_Name_19=
|National_Law_Link_19=
|National_Law_Name_20=
|National_Law_Link_20=
 
|Party_Name_1=TV broadcast services company (R.T.I.)
|Party_Link_1=
|Party_Name_2=
|Party_Link_2=
|Party_Name_3=
|Party_Link_3=
|Party_Name_4=
|Party_Link_4=
|Party_Name_5=
|Party_Link_5=
 
<!--Information about a possible appeal-->
|Appeal_To_Body=
|Appeal_To_Case_Number_Name=
|Appeal_To_Status=
|Appeal_To_Link=
|
}}
 
<!--Here the main article starts-->
The Italian data protection authority (Garante) imposed a fine of €20.000 on a TV broadcast services company (R.T.I.) in relation to a report identifying and providing information concerning the complainant. In the Garante’s view, the company failed to comply with journalism ethics and standards, thus violating the general principles of lawfulness and fairness of data processing under Article 5 (1) (a) GDPR.
 
==English Summary==
 
===Facts===
The Garante examined a complaint submitted against R.T.I. regarding the broadcasting of a TV report identifying and providing information relating to the complainant (e.g. hometown, occupation) as well as broadcasting the complainant’s voice, without her consent. Namely, the complainant requested for the removal of the video report, which was also available online.
 
===Dispute===
Based on the complaint, the Garante examined whether the collect of information from the complainant and the further public disclosure violate journalism ethics and standards, whose compliance is necessary for the respect of the principles of lawfulness and fairness of the processing.
 
===Holding===
{{DPAdecisionBOX
 
<!--Information about the DPA-->
|Jurisdiction=Italy
|DPA-BG-Color=
|DPAlogo=logoIT.png
|DPA_Abbrevation=
|DPA_With_Country=Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (Italy)
 
<!--Information about the decision-->
|Case_Number_Name=9283121
|ECLI=  
|ECLI=  


Line 210: Line 24:
|Type=Complaint
|Type=Complaint
|Outcome=Upheld
|Outcome=Upheld
|Date_Decided= 30. 01. 2020
|Date_Decided= 31. 01. 2020
|Date_Published=n/a
|Date_Published=n/a
|Year=2020
|Year=2020
Line 299: Line 113:
|EU_Law_Link_20=
|EU_Law_Link_20=


|National_Law_Name_1=Article 2-ter (1)(3) of the Italian Privacy Code
|National_Law_Name_1=Article 2-ter (1)(3) of the Italian Privacy Code  
|National_Law_Link_1= Article 2-septies (8)
|National_Law_Link_1=
|National_Law_Name_2=
|National_Law_Name_2=Article 2-septies of the Italian Privacy Code
|National_Law_Link_2=
|National_Law_Link_2=
|National_Law_Name_3=
|National_Law_Name_3=
Line 367: Line 181:
The Garante examined a complaint submitted by a citizen against a high school based in municipality of Torre del Greco. The school disseminated a disproportionate amount of teachers' personal data, including email address, fiscal code and information related to health status, contained in some lists of teachers published in the official website. Indeed, the school inserted a specific sign next to the name of the teachers who are civilian disabled and invalids.
The Garante examined a complaint submitted by a citizen against a high school based in municipality of Torre del Greco. The school disseminated a disproportionate amount of teachers' personal data, including email address, fiscal code and information related to health status, contained in some lists of teachers published in the official website. Indeed, the school inserted a specific sign next to the name of the teachers who are civilian disabled and invalids.
However, then the school had already deleted the document when the Garante opened the proceeding.
However, then the school had already deleted the document when the Garante opened the proceeding.


===Dispute===
===Dispute===
The Garante had to determinate the legal grounds to process personal data - also special categories of data - of data subjects.  
Based on the complaint, the Garante examined whether the dissemination of teachers' personal data was unlawful.  


===Holding===
===Holding===
Line 376: Line 189:
It also found that the data controller did not rely on appropriate legal grounds while processing teachers' personal data, as it was not based on the cases set forth by art. 6(1) (c)(e) GDPR. Furthermore, given that the school was not complying with a legal obligation, nor performing a task carried out in the public interest, the dissemination of personal data, included information related to health status, was unlawful according to art. 2-ter and 2-septies of the Italian Privacy Code.  
It also found that the data controller did not rely on appropriate legal grounds while processing teachers' personal data, as it was not based on the cases set forth by art. 6(1) (c)(e) GDPR. Furthermore, given that the school was not complying with a legal obligation, nor performing a task carried out in the public interest, the dissemination of personal data, included information related to health status, was unlawful according to art. 2-ter and 2-septies of the Italian Privacy Code.  
Eventually, the Garante imposed a fine of EUR 4.000, considering the amount and sensitiveness of disseminated data, and, on the other hand, the small budget of the school and the deletion of the document before the proceeding started.  
Eventually, the Garante imposed a fine of EUR 4.000, considering the amount and sensitiveness of disseminated data, and, on the other hand, the small budget of the school and the deletion of the document before the proceeding started.  
==Comment==
''Feel free to add your comment here''
==Further Resources==
''Share blogs or news articles here!''
==English Machine Translation of the Decision==
The decision below is a machine translation of the ***Italian*** original. Please refer to the ***Italian*** original for more details.
<pre>
to be completed
</pre>


==Comment==
==Comment==

Revision as of 14:28, 19 March 2020

- 9283014
LogoIT.png
Authority: Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (Italy)
Jurisdiction: Italy
Relevant Law: Article 5(1)(a) GDPR
Article 5(1)(c) GDPR
Article 6(1)(c) GDPR
Article 6(1)(e) GDPR
Article 6(2) GDPR
Article 6(3)(b) GDPR
Article 2-ter (1)(3) of the Italian Privacy Code
Article 2-septies of the Italian Privacy Code
Type: Complaint
Outcome: Upheld
Started:
Decided: 31. 01. 2020
Published: n/a
Fine: 4 000 EUR
Parties: High school in Torre del Greco
National Case Number/Name: 9283014
European Case Law Identifier: n/a
Appeal: n/a
Original Language(s): Italian
Original Source: Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (in IT)
Initial Contributor: n/a

The Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante) imposed a fine of EUR 4,000 on a high school for having published full lists of teachers on its official website. The data controller disseminated personal data of teachers, as well as data related to their health status, without appropriate legal grounds, as required by art. 6 GDPR and art 2-ter and 2-septies of the Italian Privacy Code, and going against the principles of fairness and minimisation set forth by art. 5 GDPR.

English Summary

Facts

The Garante examined a complaint submitted by a citizen against a high school based in municipality of Torre del Greco. The school disseminated a disproportionate amount of teachers' personal data, including email address, fiscal code and information related to health status, contained in some lists of teachers published in the official website. Indeed, the school inserted a specific sign next to the name of the teachers who are civilian disabled and invalids. However, then the school had already deleted the document when the Garante opened the proceeding.

Dispute

Based on the complaint, the Garante examined whether the dissemination of teachers' personal data was unlawful.

Holding

The Garante declared that the school, while having the right to publish the lists of teachers for transparency purposes, was required not to carry out disproportionate processing of personal data, in breach of art. 5(1) (a)(c) GDPR. Moreover, the dissemination of unnecessary information such as email address, fiscal code and health status is not in line with the guidelines issued by the DPA on the online processing of data carried out by public bodies for transparency purposes (see https://www.garanteprivacy.it/web/guest/home/docweb/-/docweb-display/docweb/3134436 - ITA language). It also found that the data controller did not rely on appropriate legal grounds while processing teachers' personal data, as it was not based on the cases set forth by art. 6(1) (c)(e) GDPR. Furthermore, given that the school was not complying with a legal obligation, nor performing a task carried out in the public interest, the dissemination of personal data, included information related to health status, was unlawful according to art. 2-ter and 2-septies of the Italian Privacy Code. Eventually, the Garante imposed a fine of EUR 4.000, considering the amount and sensitiveness of disseminated data, and, on the other hand, the small budget of the school and the deletion of the document before the proceeding started.

Comment

Feel free to add your comment here

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!

English Machine Translation of the Decision

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

to be completed