GR       |

Decisions of the Hellenic Data Protection Authority

  1. Decision 1/2020
    The complainant submitted a request before HDPA in order to condemn a supposing illegal violation of his personal data. The data were part of documents of his own will. The defendants reformatted and shared the data in the wills with a big number of people. The authority after hearing all parties decided her lack of competence for the issue. According to the decision, the competent authority is the court since the documents are part of a lawsuit (lawsuit for compensation) submitted before the judicial authorities. The issue will be evaluated in the light of article 9A of the Greek Constitution and on the base of the evaluation of evidences of proof.
  2. Decision 2/2020 HDPA
    The complainant submitted a request before the PPC SA Hellas in order to get a copy of her private communication (post and email) with the company since 2015, without any response. The HDPA requested the company to provide a lawful explanation. PPC SA Hellas responded that no communication existed between the complainant and the company. PPC SA Hellas fault, while acting as a data processor, was the absence of a response to the complainant’s request within the legal deadline of 1 month since the request, as well as the absence of information for the delay with reasons explaining this delay. These actions constituted a violation of article 12 para. 3 and 4 GDPR. The authority fined the company with a penalty of 5.000EUR.
  3. The complainant requested to receive a copy of a video recording of an incident between him and one of the company’s employees. With a new request, he asked for a copy of every document related to him getting no response to his requests. The company (Glyfada Golf Club) stated that there was no active video recording system at the time and that an invitation had been sent to the complainant to receive the relevant document. The authority decided that the applicable law in this case was not GDPR but the law 2472/1997 instead, the right to access of which was violated. The violation happened after the 15-time period of response have passed. The company was fined by a 5.000EUR penalty for the aforementioned violation.

Related Posts