Home

Some companies that have chosen us

Privacy Officer and Privacy Consultant
CDP Scheme according to ISO/IEC 17024:2012
European Privacy Auditor
ISDP©10003 Certification Scheme according to ISO/IEC 17065:2012
Auditor
According to standard UNI 11697:2017
Lead Auditor ISO/IEC 27001:2022
According to standard ISO/IEC 17024:2012
Data Protection Officer
According to standard ISO/IEC 17024:2012
Anti-Bribery Lead Auditor Expert
According to standard ISO/IEC 17024:2012
ICT Security Manager
According to standard UNI 11506:2017
IT Service Management (ITSM)
According to the ITIL Foundation
Ethical Hacker (CEH)
According to the EC-Council
Network Defender (CND)
According to the EC-Council
Computer Hacking Forensics Investigator (CHFI)
According to the EC-Council
Penetration Testing Professional (CPENT)
According to the EC-Council

Professional qualifications

Stay up-to-date with world news!

Select your topics of interest:

News

Home / News
/
POLISH SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY, UODO: the UODO president imposes a sanction into the cross-borders process.

POLISH SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY, UODO: the UODO president imposes a sanction into the cross-borders process.

The UODO president has imposed 15 million sanctions for East Power from Jenelia Góra because he does not provide the personal data access and other informations to the Supervisory Authority, who need them to perform the tasks.

The penalised company deals with work intermediation in Poland and Germany, and a complaint against its actions was made by a German citizen, as it processed his personal data for marketing purposes. The complaint was lodged with the German DPA competent for Rhineland-Palatinate, but it was taken over for the examination by the President of the UODO, who was in this case so-called. the main body as the company is established in Poland.

In the course of that procedure, the President of the UODO sent a request for clarification to the company on three occasions. Two of them (properly served and received by the company) remained unanswered. The company replied to one of its requests, but the explanations contained therein were incomplete and contradictory. According to the President of the DPA, they were far from sufficient to establish the facts of the case. In the light of such conduct, the President of the UODO considered that it intentionally impedes the conduct of the proceedings or at least disregards its obligations related to cooperation with the supervisory authority. The President of the DPA therefore considered it necessary to initiate a separate procedure for the imposition of an administrative penalty on it.

It was only in response to the notice of initiation that the company submitted more extensive explanations, but this time they were incomplete and required further investigation. The President of the UODO therefore considered that the company did not wish to cooperate with it and did not comply with the obligation provided for by the GDPR to provide him with access to personal data and other information necessary for the performance of his tasks, in this case to the examination of the complaint brought by the German national.

When adopting the decision to impose an administrative penalty on East Power Sp. z o.o. and determining its amount, the President of the UODO took into account as aggravating circumstances m.in. the importance of the infringement (which undermines the proper functioning of the GDPR-defined system of personal data protection), the intentional nature of the infringement and the unsatisfactory degree of cooperation of the administrator with the President of the UODO in order to remedy the infringement and mitigate its effects.

The sanctions imposed by the President of the UODO in the form of administrative financial penalties are aimed at discipline administrators and processors. Their disregard for their obligations in connection with cooperation with the President of the UODO leads to the extension of his proceedings. In this way, the rights of persons whose personal data are violated are hindered.

This is the case with the company penalised. By its action, it makes it impossible to consider the complaint of a German national and the decision of the President of the UODO to decide the case relating to the complaint.

SOURCE: AUTORITA’ PER LA PROTEZIONE DEI DATI DELLA POLONIA UODO

Recommended to you

Advanced Research