The Administrative Court of Warsaw, as a motivation of its decision of the 23rd of February 2021, has shared the position and all the arguments of the UODO President expressed in the decision which impose a sanction of 100.000 PLN to the Surveyor Chief of the Country for having made the inspection impossible. The Court has criticized both cooperation actions of GGK with UODO, as the arguments presented in the appeal against the decision of the supervisory authority.
In the explanatory sentence of the 23rd of February 2021 (dossier n. II SA/Wa 1746/20), the WSA has declared that in a state of right it is unthinkable to prevent the inspection, boycott and contest powers of the UODO president. The Court has also considered that a public authority, as the GGK, shall know the legislation and understand the existence, also without obtain relevant document, which powers has UODO and which legal basis it is assuming.
The WSA referred to the GGK’s explanation of the endorsement of refusal to agree to carry out the checks provided by it on the UODO’s authorizations to carry out the checks. GGK claimed in its complaint to WSA that it was a critical opinion on the scope of the UODO audit rather than an impediment or prevention of control. WSA considered this claim to be not logical.
Nor did they find confirmation of GGK’s arguments that control should take place not at him, but at the head of the Geodesy and Kartography Office. The Court fully shares the view of UODO that the Chief Geodesy and Kartography Office is the organizational unit by which the GGGK exercises its powers. The WSA pointed out that the UODO correctly indicated the place of inspection.
Nor did they find confirmation of the GGGK’s arguments regarding m.in. that this case was “prevented from bringing an effective remedy before a court” and from being brought to justice by a court without full jurisdiction. In addition, they raised serious concerns about the WSA’s knowledge of the law by the GGK. According to the General Court, the country’s main geodesy should know that in the Polish legal system the control of the decision of the President of UODO is carried out by means of a complaint to the Provincial Administrative Court.
In assessing the size and amount of the administrative penalty, the Tribunal divided the position of the President of UODO in its entirety. According to the General Court, a penalty of less than 100.000 PLN would not fulfill a deterrent function. The penalty of this amount is also disciplinary and preventive.
The Court of first Instance also stated that the justification for the amount of the penalty imposed was logical and was fully explained by the President of UODO.
SOURCE: AUTORITA’ PER LA PROTEZIONE DEI DATI DELLA POLONIA – UODO