Polish IP & IT law – copyright trademark computer internet telecomm

Archive for: Art. 29 PPD

Personal data protection, case I OSK 1666/12

August 26th, 2013, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish company Promedica Care Sp. z o.o requested the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection (GIODO) to issue a decision that would order Agora S.A., the owner of gazeta.pl website, to disclose IP addresses of users who posted negative comments regarding Promedica24.pl website. The GIODO decided that Agora S.A. should disclose requested information, although, it also noticed that the provisions of Article 29 of the Polish Act of 29 August 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data – PPD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych), unified text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 6 July 2002, No. 101, item 926, with subsequent amendments, were repealed as of 7 March 2011.

1. The processing of data is permitted only if:
1) the data subject has given his/her consent, unless the processing consists in erasure of personal data,
2) processing is necessary for the purpose of exercise of rights and duties resulting from a legal provision,
3) processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract,
4) processing is necessary for the performance of tasks provided for by law and carried out in the public interest,
5) processing is necessary for the purpose of the legitimate interests pursued by the controllers or data recipients, provided that the processing does not violate the rights and freedoms of the data subject.

However, these regulations should be still applied to proceedings initiated before the entry into force of the Act that repealed the above mentioned provisions, and there was no obstacle to justify the refusal to provide the requested data according to the provisions of Article 30 of the PPD.

Article 30
The controller shall refuse the access to the personal data of the filing system to subjects and persons other than those referred to in Article 29 paragraph 1, if it would:
1) result in the disclosure of the information constituting a state secrecy,
2) pose a threat to national defence or security of the state, human life and health, or security and public order,
3) pose a threat to fundamental economic or financial interests of the state,
4) result in a substantial breach of personal interests of the data subjects or other persons.

The General Inspector did not agree with Agora S.A. that providing the requested data would infringe personal interests of the users of gazeta.pl website and its fora. The violation was only hypothetical, and was not supported by proper evidence. Agora S.A. argued that there are no legal instruments that would allow for monitoring the use of disclosed data, and this may lead to their use not only inconsistent with the purpose for which they were disclosed, but even to such use that is contrary to law. The GIODO noted that the absence of such instruments is not synonymous with the use of disclosed data contrary to the purpose for which it was made available. At the moment such data was disclosed, the Company will become the controller (administrator) as defined in the Article 7(4) of the PPD.

Article 7
Whenever in this Act a reference is made to any of the following, it shall mean:
4) controller – shall mean a body, an organisational unit, an establishment or a person referred to in Article 3, who decides on the purposes and means of the processing of personal data.

According to the GIODO, the processing of these data will be subject to the regulations provided in the provisions of the PPD, in particular the obligation not to undergo further processing of the data collected that would not be in accordance with the objectives of the disclosure (so-called principle of expediency/purposefulness), and the control of data processing in compliance with the provisions on personal data protection will be still the competence of the Inspector General. Agora S.A. argued that the provisions of Article 18 of the Polish Act of 18 July 2002 on Providing Services by Electronic Means – PSEM – (in Polish: ustwa o świadczeniu usług droga elektroniczną), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 144, item. 1204 with subsequent amendments, should be applied in its case, not the provisions of the PPD.

Article 18
1. The service provider may process the following personal data of the service recipient necessary for entering in, designing contents, amending or terminating legal relationship between them:
1) service recipient’s surname and names ,
2) his/her PESEL number (Personal Identification Number),
3) his/her permanent residence address,
4) his/her address for correspondence, if it is different than the address referred to in point 3,
5) data used for verifying the service recipient’s electronic signature ,
6) service recipient’s electronic addresses .
2. In order to effect contracts or other legal activity having been concluded with a service recipient, a service provider may process other data necessary due to nature (characteristics) of the service provided or way of its billing.
3. The service provider distinguishes and marks those data from among the data referred to in paragraph 2, as such being necessary for providing services by electronic means in accordance with art. 22 paragraph 1.
4. The service provider may process, upon consent of s service recipient and for the purposes set forth in art. 19 paragraph 2 point 2, other data concerning the service recipient, which are not necessary for providing service by electronic means.
5. The service provider may process the following data describing the way of using the service provided by electronic means by a service recipient (traffic data):
1) denotations identifying the service recipient assigned on the basis of the data referred to in paragraph 1,
2) denotations identifying the telecommunication network terminal or a teleinformation system, which have been used by a service recipient,
3) information about commencement, termination and a range of every usage of the service provided by electronic means,
4) information about using of the service provided by electronic means by a service recipient.
6. The service provider provides the information on data referred to in paragraphs 1 – 5 to the state authorities for the needs of legal proceedings carried on by them.

The provider is therefore obliged to provide information on all categories of data listed in Article 18(1-5) of the PSEM, to the State authorities for the purpose of the proceedings conducted by them. The Inspector General noted that the disclosed information should also be understood as such data. The GIODO said that the provision of Article 18(6) of the PSEM are constructed in general terms and do not indicate either the types of bodies that may request such information, or the types of proceedings: criminal, civil, administrative or enforcement. The Inspector General noted that the provision of Article 18(6) of the PSEM only requires the provider to disclose information to State bodies, and it should not be interpreted broadly as the legal norm that is prohibiting the disclosure of such information to other entities. The GIODO decided that if the legislature had the intention to limit the disclosure of the information referred to in Article 18(1-5) of the PSEM, only for the bodies referred to in Article18(6) of the Act, it would explicitly formulate this provision, for example, by using the phrase “only”, which is a legislative method of defining the closed circle of entities, as it was provided in other regulations, for instance in the Article 66g and Article 66j § 4 of the Polish Act of 17 June 1966 on Administrative Enforcement Proceedings, or in the Article 72(1) of the Polish Act 5 August 2010 on Protection of Classified Information and in Article 105(1) of the Polish Act of 29 August 1997 Banking Law. The Inspector General noted that the legislature did not use the phrase “only” in the provisions of Article 218 of the Criminal Proceedings Code – CRPC – (in Polish: Kodeks Postępowania Karnego) of 6 June 1997, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 89, item 555, with subsequent amendments, in relation to an obligation to disclose, at the request contained in the order, to the court or the prosecutor any mail and packages and the data referred to in Article 180c and 180d of the Polish Act of 16 July 2000 on Telecommunications Law – TLA – (in Polish: Prawo telekomunikacyjne), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 171, item 1800 with subsequent amendments.

Article 180c
1. The obligation referred to in Article 180a (1) shall cover the data necessary to:
1) trace the network termination point, telecommunications terminal equipment, an end user:
a) originating the call,
b) called;
2) identify:
a) the date and time of a call and its duration,
b) the type of a call,
c) location of telecommunications terminal equipment.
2. The minister competent for communications in agreement with the minister competent for internal affairs, having regard to the type of telecommunications activities performed by operators of a public telecommunications network or providers of publicly available telecommunications services, data specified in paragraph 1, costs of data collection and retention as well as the need to avoid multiple retention and storage of the same data, shall specify, by means of an ordinance:
1) a detailed list of data referred to in paragraph 1;
2) types of public telecommunications network operators or providers of publicly available telecommunications services obliged to retain and store the data.

Article 180d
Telecommunications undertakings shall be obliged to provide conditions for access and retention as well as to make available at their own cost the data referred to in Article 159 (1) (1) and (3) to (5), in Article 161 and in Article 179 (9) related to the provided telecommunications service and processed by them to authorized entities, to the court and to the prosecutor, under the terms and observing the procedures specified in separate provisions.

The Inspector General stressed that the legislature has indicated that only the court or the prosecutor is allowed to open the correspondence, mail and data, or order for their opening.

Article 218
§ 1. Offices, institutions and entities operating in post and telecommunications fields, customs houses, and transportation institutions and companies, shall be obligated to surrender to the court or state prosecutor upon demand included in their order, any correspondence or transmissions significant to the pending proceedings. Only the court and a state prosecutor shall be entitled to inspect them or to order their inspection.

The Inspector General also stressed that the above-cited provisions of the CRPC should not be applied in this case, because Promedica Care Sp. z o.o is not the authority conducting the proceedings in a criminal case, and the disclosed personal data will be used by it to initiate civil, not criminal proceedings. The GIODO indicated that Promedica may follow the procedure provided for in Article 29 of the PPD, and civil proceedings under the Civil Proceedings Code – CPC (in Polish: Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego) of 17 November 1964, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 43, item 296, with subsequent amendments, regardless of actions taken under the criminal proceedings. Agora S.A. filed a complaint.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 8 March 2012 II SA/Wa 2821/11 repealed the contested decision, and held that according to the provisions of Article 18(6) of the PSEM, the only one empowered to obtain data collected by the service provider within the meaning of that Act, are the State bodies. The PSEM does not contain any other provision, which serve as the basis for disclosure of data to the entities other than state authorities. The court stated that if the legislature’s intention was to give permission to obtain operational data to entities other than state authorities, it would have included a clear regulation providing for such permission in the PSEM. Data protection is a general rule. The service provider may process personal and operational data only in the extent and on terms defined in the PSEM. Only in the absence of regulations provided in the PSEM such processing may be based on an appropriate application of the PPD. The disclosure of data to third parties – such as Promedica Care – is breaking of that protection and as an exception to the rule cannot be interpreted broadly. GIODO filed a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgment of 21 August 2013 case file I OSK 1666/12 dismissed it. The SAC held that any company or individual has the right to request ISPs to disclose e-mail addresses and IP addresses that are associated with the offensive entries.

Personal data protection, case II SA/Wa 1009/11

December 28th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

A Polish farmer who owns an agriculture tourism farm and is advertising his services and business on a personal website, has found negative comments about his services at one of the Internet forum websites. He asked the administrator of the forum to remove his personal data. Some posts have been removed, but the farmer has demanded the removal of all statements and comments, and the access to personal data of forum’s users. He requested the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection (GIODO) to order the forum administrator to remove all comments and to disclose all necessary personal data. The GIODO refused to issue such a decision and ruled that the farmer himself published such information as his name and address on his website in connection to the conducted economic activity. According to the GIODO, the processing of information on the farmer’s name on the Internet forum website, has its justification in Article 23(1)(v) of the Polish Act of 29 August 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data – PPD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych), unified text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 6 July 2002, No. 101, item 926, with subsequent amendments.

1. The processing of data is permitted only if:
1) the data subject has given his/her consent, unless the processing consists in erasure of personal data,
2) processing is necessary for the purpose of exercise of rights and duties resulting from a legal provision,
3) processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract,
4) processing is necessary for the performance of tasks provided for by law and carried out in the public interest,
5) processing is necessary for the purpose of the legitimate interests pursued by the controllers or data recipients, provided that the processing does not violate the rights and freedoms of the data subject.

According to the GIODO, the purpose of the legitimate interests is based on providing a service that allows for posting on the internet forum. The dissatisfied farmer filed a complaint against this decision.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 16 November 2011 case file II SA/Wa 1009/11 dismissed it and decided that personal data published on a website that advertises agritourism services, are closely related to his business activities, and therefore subject to much weaker protection. These services may be subject to different assessments of people using them, there may be also some negative comments. The Court noted that the farmer could file a civil suit for the infringement of his interests against persons who wrote such comments.

Personal data protection, case II SA/Wa 2037/10

May 12th, 2011, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Polish branch of McDonald’s Corp. has made a promotional campaign based on the issuance of the so-called “bonificards” i.e. discount cards entitling the holder to purchase certain McDonald’s products at a reduced price. Only employees and business partners were allowed to use such cards. The terms of the promotion explicitly stated that the cards cannot be resold. McDonald’s learned that cards were offered for sale or as a free bonus to other items sold on Allegro – Polish Internet auctions website.

McDonald’s requested Allegro to disclose personal data of persons engaged in the above mentioned auctions, on the grounds that these buyers and sellers violated the terms and rules of promotion, and thus McDonald’s intended to take steps to – on one hand – to deprive sellers of their wrongfully obtained benefits, on the other hand – to take away all bonificards from people who bought them. Allegro refused to provide requested data, indicating that there was no reason to assume that there was any kind of illegal action, arguing that disclosure may be classified as unlawful conduct of the controller that violates personal interests of the users and that may result in Allegro’s responsibility that is based on civil law regulations.

McDonald’s requested the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection to order Allegro the disclosure of information previously requested. The GIODO refused and pointed out that in this case the interests of McDonald’s cannot prevail over the interests of persons affected by the request. The disclosure of such data would be, in fact, too far-reaching interference with the privacy of the person concerned. McDonald’s filed a complaint against these decisions.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 16 March 2011 case file II SA/Wa 2037/10 overruled GIODO’s decisions. The VAC held that McDonald’s has the right to know who offers promotion cards at online auctions provided by Allegro. The Court ruled that the provisions of the PPD cannot be interpreted as meaning that the disclosure of personal data of a person who offer to sell someone else’s property, violates that person’s interests. The protection of interests of one person cannot be done without prejudice to the rights of others. Especially, when such persons knew that they were trying to dispose of someone’s else things whose value was measured in money (the value of the Company’s products that were available in the promotional terms). The court ordered to reconsider the case, where the GIODO shall take into account all comments made by the VAC. The GIODO decided to file a cassation complaint.

The Supreme Administrative Court in its judgments case files I OSK 834/11 and I OSK 1137/11 agreed with the GIODO. The Court held that in the case of electronic services, personal data may be disclosed only for the purposes of criminal proceedings.

Personal data protection, case I OSK 963/09

May 13th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 11 May 2010, case file I OSK 963/09, held that an editorial office would have to disclose private addresses of the journalists it employs. Presspublica – the publisher of “Rzeczpospolita” should disclose the private addresses of those of the journalists, who its readers intend to sue in court for the infringement of their personal rights. This decision is binding on all media. The SAC referred to article 29 of the Polish Act of 29 August 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data – PPD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 29 October 1997, No. 133, item 883, unified text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 6 July 2002, No. 101, item 926, with later amendments.

1. In case of providing the access to the data for the purposes other than including into the data filing system, the controller shall disclose the data kept in the data filing system to persons or subjects authorised by the law.
2. Personal data, exclusive of data referred to in Article 27 paragraph 1, may also be disclosed, for the purposes other than including into the data filing system, to persons and subjects other than those referred to in paragraph 1 above, provided that such persons or subjects present reliably their reasons for being granted the access to the data and that granting such access will not violate the rights and freedoms of the data subjects.
3. Personal data are disclosed at written and justified requests, unless the provisions of another law state otherwise. Such requests should include information allowing for identification of the requested personal data within the filing system and indicating their scope and purpose.
4. Disclosed personal data shall be used only pursuant to the purpose for which they have been disclosed.

The decision is especially dangerous to media. Why? Because in a situation, where anyone can request the disclosure of the journalists’ personal data (justifying it i.e. with the intent to file a civil lawsuit against them) those journalists can find themselves in a real and tangible danger posed by the unpredictable readers, bashed by the newspaper. In the case at hand, Krzysztof W. requested the addresses of the authors of the article published in Rzeczpospolita in 2007 in order to sue them in court for the infringement of his personal rights.

The court rejected his lawsuit, requesting that the plaintiff provide the most recent residential addresses of the defendants. The publisher refused to disclose the addresses, citing the provisions of the Press Law and stressing the importance of the right to privacy. It also pointed out the alternative manners of serving the lawsuit (at the defendants’ business address). Nonetheless, the General Inspector for the Protection of Personal Data disagreed with the publisher and obliged it to promptly disclose the data in question. The VAC in Warsaw dismissed the appeal and the SAC rejected the cassation claim, stating that the readers cannot be deprived of the possibility to defend their rights before courts merely because the personal data of the infringers remains unavailable.

Categories: Art. 29 PPD | personal rights or interests | Polish Act on Protection of Personal Data | Polish Supreme Administrative Court.

Personal data protection, case I OSK 667/09

February 13th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

On 15 January 2008, Tomasz W. filed with the General Inspector for Personal Data Protection (GIODO) a complaint concerning an unauthorized processing of personal data carried out by the Polish company Nasza Klasa Sp. z o.o. from Wroclaw, the owner of nasza-klasa.pl website. He informed the GIODO, that this very popular Polish website on classmates, hosts a photo featuring his image together with a list of names of other photographed people attached to it. Tomasz W. has repeatedly appealed to the website administrators with the request to remove his name from the list. However, he received no response from Nasza Klasa company.

As a result of the investigation, the GIODO found that on 31 December 2007, a registered user of nasza-klasa.pl posted classmates’ photo featuring students of a primary school. On the same day, another registered user, placed the names of people who were portrayed at the photograph – including the name and surname of Tomasz W. On 2, 9 and 14 January 2008, Tomasz W. requested Nasza Klasa Sp. z o.o. the removal of his personal data.

In a decision of 27 May 2008, case file DOLiS/DEC-314/08/13239, the GIODO, relying on the provisions of the Polish Act of 29 August 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data – PPD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 29 October 1997, No. 133, item 883, unified text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 6 July 2002, No. 101, item 926, with subsequent amendments, ruled that information on the applicant’s full name, school and class to which he attended, together with his image, are personal data and the data collector is Nasza Klasa Sp. z o.o.

However, the GIODO also ruled that it should be borne in mind that according to the provision of the Polish Act of 18 July 2002 on Providing Services by Electronic Means – PSEM – (in Polish: ustwa o świadczeniu usług droga elektroniczną), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 144, item. 1204 with subsequent amendments, Nasza Klasa sp. z o.o. provides electronic services for registered users of the portal website, consisting of the storage of data of these users in the computer system. This activity is the condition to legalize the processing of personal data in accordance with article 23(1) pt. 5 of the PPD. In addition, the GIODO found that in this case the applicant’s rights have not been violated, because the access to its data was limited to a group of people registered on nasza-klasa.pl website.

Tomasz W. asked the GIODO for the retrial. He pointed out that the reasons for the decision have many contradictions, inconsistencies and is ambiguous. He accused the GIODO of laconic and cursory treatment of his case. He again emphasized that his personal data have been published on the nasza-klasa.pl website without his knowledge or consent, in violation of his civil rights and liberties.

After the rehearing of the case, the GIODO annulled the contested decision, and discontinued the proceedings. GIODO claimed that the re-examination of the case leads to the conclusion that the disputed information about Tomasy W. did not fall within the definition of personal data. The name and surname have been given under his old image from many years ago. Hence, the combination of photos from the past, with a name and surname of a person and a primary school, which such person attended did not allow for the identification of a person without excessive costs and time. The findings that the disputed information is not personal data within the meaning of the PPD caused the proceedings in the matter to be groundless and on the basis of article 105 § 1 of the APC, it had to be discontinued.

Tomasz W. lodged a complaint with the Viovodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw. The complainant asked for annulment of the decision of first and second instance. Tomasz W. claimed the violation of the substantive law, i.e. article 6(1) of the PPD, through its improper interpretation, of article 32(1) pt 7 and 8 of that Act, by recognizing that Tomasz W. is not entitled to request cessation of the processing of his data and the right to object, and a breach of article 7 of the APC by not explaining all the relvant facts. Tomasz W. disagreed with the statement of the GIODO that questioned information about his person is not personal data within the meaning of the PPD. He stated that any information about an identified or identifiable individual is personal data. Furthermore, he argued that the claim of the GIODO that the data are available only for specific people – registered users of the portal is not acceptable, because nasza-klasa.pl has no mechanisms for verification of users identity, which makes the questioned data easily accessible for everyone. Moreover, Tomasz W. also argued that a registered user who does not know him would have some difficulty in identifying his person but such obstacles would not happen to a person who knows about Tomasy W., and is looking for additional information.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court in its judgment of 3 March 2009 case file II SA/Wa 1495/08 ruled that the GIODO erred in its decisions, because information about the name and surname of Tomasz W., combined with information about the name and address of the primary school and the determination of the class to which he attended in 1978/79, even if it was thirty years ago, are personal data. According to the Court provisions of article 1 of the PPD introduced the principle of autonomy of human information, meaning the protection of information about human being. This provision is a kind of emanation of the general right guaranteed by the Polish Constitution in article 47, according to which “Everyone shall have the right to legal protection of his private and family life, of his honour and good reputation and to make decisions about his personal life”. This means that the protection of personal data is related to the protection of privacy rights. This follows from the wording of article 6 of the PPD, indicating that the personal data concern identified or identifiable natural or legal person and that the identifiable is a person is one whose identity can be determined. From wording of that provisions the VAC concluded that personal data are data that identify a person’s identity. The VAC also relied on the content of recital 12 of the Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, which emphasized the protection of all data relating to a person, and therefore also information about someones past.

(12) Whereas the protection principles must apply to all processing of personal data by any person whose activities are governed by Community law; whereas there should be excluded the processing of data carried out by a natural person in the exercise of activities which are exclusively personal or domestic, such as correspondence and the holding of records of addresses

However, in recital 26 of the abovementioned Directive states that data protection rules must apply to any information concerning an identified or identifiable person. In order to determine whether a person is identifiable, all the means which can be used by the controller or any other person to identify a person, should be taken into the account. The rules of data protection do not apply to data rendered anonymously in such a way that a subject of the data can not be identified. The identification of a given person concerns also past information about a specific human being, by which information one can learn about such person’s identity. Accordingly, the VAC held that European law means the protection of personal data as the protection of all the facts concerning the past of a particular person, which corresponds with the content of article 6(2) of the PDP. So this means that such data would also be protected. Referring to the foregoing facts of Tomasz W. case, the VAC ruled that that nasza-klasa.pl website published his image and name. In the opinion of the court these are the personal data which are protected by the PPD, because on their basis one is able to identify given person.

Nasza Klasa sp. z o.o. filed a cassation complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) challenging in entirety the judgment of the VAC. The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 18 November 2009, case file I OSK 667/09, rejected the complaint. The SAC held that the primary issue arising in this case was whether a classmates’ picture that was taken thirty years ago, at which Tomasz W. is potrayed, in the circumstances of the case, can be analyzed to determine his identity without necessarily involving excessive resources or time, and therefore, whether the data disclosed in the photo in question, constitutes personal data within the meaning of article 6 of the PPD, and whether it should be protected.

The concept of “personal data” on the Polish law includes any information concerning an individual if it is possible to define its identity and its identification. Personal data is a set of messages about a particular person such integrated that it allows for its individualization. It includes at least information necessary for identification (name, surname, place of residence), but this is not restricted, because it also include further information, strengthening the degree of identification. Such information will also include pictures of the individual, even if they were taken in the past, allowing to identify a person. In a situation where such a photograph is presented with a name and surname of the person portrayed, in a place accessible to an unlimited number of entities, it must be considered that it constitutes personal data subject to protection under the PPD. Mainly, the objective evaluation criteria decides for the qualification of given information as personal data, but it also should comprise of all information, including extralinguistic (context), to which third party may have or has an access. A different approach to the presented issues would maginalize the importance of the laws and it would not relate to its designated function.

Thus it should be considered that the image of Tomasz W. portrayed at the photograph that was taken 30 years ago, affixed with the class, his name and surname, and then published at nasz-klasa.pl website constitutes personal data within the meaning of article 6(2) of the PPD, and the cassation complaint was not justified. The SAC also noted that the consent for the processing of personal data cannot be in any way implied.

The SAC also stressed the fact the Internet as a source of information is increasing on a unknown scale and importance. It provides an access to specific information to a vast number of persons and allows for any of its processing within the meaning of the PPD. At the same time there are not yet developed appropriate mechanisms for the protection of individual rights when those rights have been violated as a result of the disclosure of information on the Internet. Then, it is a great role of law enforcement bodies, including the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection in creating practice to comply with applicable laws also on the Internet. It is an unacceptablr situation in which the entity seeks to remove its image from a particular website, and the administration fails to take action to ensure the protection of civil rights. The image is one of the very personal property rights and lack of consent to its publication, if it is not a public person, is a sufficient reason to believe that regulations of the PPD apply, if the conditions set in the article 6(2) of the PPD have been met. There is a legal sequel to this story. See “Personal data protection, case II SA/Wa 1212/10“.

Personal data protection, case II SA/Wa 71/07

February 12th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

A lawyer representing one Polish entrepreneur, and as you already know personal data of the parties are removed from Polish courts’ judgments, requested the General Inspector for Personal Data Protection (GIODO) to issue an order to Home.pl company from Szczecin, to disclose personal data such as name, surname, the firm, address, office’s seat, phone number and e-mail address of a person, which had only published its caller id, and who registered a certain Internet domain name. The lawyer stated that his client is claiming the right to use the questioned domain name and the requested information is necessary for the initation of the arbitration proceedings before the Court of Conciliation at the the Polish Chamber of Information Technology and Telecommunications.

Home.pl refused to provide the abovementioned personal data, arguing that the parties of the legal relationship arising from the fact of the registration and maintenance of Internet domain names are the Research and Academic Computer Network (in Polish: Naukowa i Akademicka Sieć Komputerowa) – the national registry of the .pl domain, and the domain name subscriber.

The GIODO performed an investigation based on the administrative proceedings regulations. The GIODO did an inspection of the Company’s headquarters and found that Home.pl maintains a separate collection of data of subscribers who have registered their domain names in NASK through Home.pl services. NASK is the national domain name registrar, while Home.pl arranges for the registration and maintenance of Internet domain names. Home.pl represents an applicant for the domain name registration before NASK. A natural or legal person and Home.pl have to establish a legal relationship based on a registration contract in order to register the domain name in NASK. The legal relationship is based on registering and maintaining of the internet domain name. The GIODO found that in this case, the contested domain name was registered by a natural person.

In September 2006, the General Inspector for Personal Data Protection issued an administrative decision which ordered Home.pl to disclose personal data of the individual who registered the Internet domain name in question, the name, surname, address, phone number and e-mail address. Home.pl requested for a retrial of the case. The GIODO upheld the decision and Home.pl filed a complaint against it.

The Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw in its judgment of 30 Novmeber 2007 case file II SA/Wa 71/07 ruled that the complaint was based on Article 29(2) in connection with Article 22 of the Polish Act of 29 August 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data – PPD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych), published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 29 October 1997, No. 133, item 883, unified text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 6 July 2002, No. 101, item 926, with subsequent amendments.

Article 29
1. In case of providing the access to the data for the purposes other than including into the data filing system, the controller shall disclose the data kept in the data filing system to persons or subjects authorised by the law.
2. Personal data, exclusive of data referred to in Article 27 paragraph 1, may also be disclosed, for the purposes other than including into the data filing system, to persons and subjects other than those referred to in paragraph 1 above, provided that such persons or subjects present reliably their reasons for being granted the access to the data and that granting such access will not violate the rights and freedoms of the data subjects.
3. Personal data are disclosed at written and justified requests, unless the provisions of another law state otherwise. Such requests should include information allowing for identification of the requested personal data within the filing system and indicating their scope and purpose.
4. Disclosed personal data shall be used only pursuant to the purpose for which they have been disclosed.
(…)
Article 22
The proceedings with respect to the matters regulated by this Act shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure, unless other provisions of the law state otherwise.

According to the VAC, the provisions of Article 29(1) and (2) allow third parties to request the disclosure of personal data for purposes other than inclusion in the collection. It should be noted that these provisions being in force until 1 May 2004, gave no grounds to demand the disclosure if the controller was the private sector. This situation changed after the amendment of 22 January 2004. The Court noted that the request for disclosure of personal data may be filed by any person i.e. natural person, any organizational unit, both public and private. It is important that the possesion of personal data is necessary to achieve intended goals, and the request for personal data is credible and reasonable. Such request does not require a collector to disclosure personal data because it must assess whether the conditions have been met to provide such data according to provisions of Article 29 of the PPD.

1. In case of providing the access to the data for the purposes other than including into the data filing system, the controller shall disclose the data kept in the data filing system to persons or subjects authorised by the law.
2. Personal data, exclusive of data referred to in Article 27 paragraph 1, may also be disclosed, for the purposes other than including into the data filing system, to persons and subjects other than those referred to in paragraph 1 above, provided that such persons or subjects present reliably their reasons for being granted the access to the data and that granting such access will not violate the rights and freedoms of the data subjects.
3. Personal data are disclosed at written and justified requests, unless the provisions of another law state otherwise. Such requests should include information allowing for identification of the requested personal data within the filing system and indicating their scope and purpose.
4. Disclosed personal data shall be used only pursuant to the purpose for which they have been disclosed.

However, the VAC stressed that fact that collector’s discretion cannot mean its arbitrariness. In the case of the unfounded refusal to provide personal data according Article 29 (2) of the PPD, the General Inspector for Personal Data Protection shall have the right – in accordance with Article 18(1) pt. 2 of the PPD – to require the disclosure of personal data.

1. In case of any breach of the provisions on personal data protection, the Inspector General ex officio or upon a motion of a person concerned, by means of an administrative decision, shall order to restore the proper legal state, and in particular:
(…)
2) to complete, update, correct, disclose, or not to disclose personal data,

Undoubtedly, the request for the disclosure of personal data must be credible and legitimate. Thus, if such request is do not precluded by provisions of article 27 of the PPD, the collector must disclose such data.

1. The processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, religious, party or trade-union membership, as well as the processing of data concerning health, genetic code, addictions or sex life and data relating to convictions, decisions on penalty, fines and other decisions issued in court or administrative proceedings shall be prohibited.
2. Processing of the data referred to in paragraph 1 above shall not constitute a breach of the Act where:
1) the data subject has given his/her written consent, unless the processing consists in erasure of personal data,
2) the specific provisions of other statute provide for the processing of such data without the data subject’s consent and provide for adequate safeguards,
3) processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another person where the data subject is physically or legally incapable of giving his/her consent until the establishing of a guardian or a curator,
4) processing is necessary for the purposes of carrying out the statutory objectives of churches and other religious unions, associations, foundations, and other non-profitseeking organisations or institutions with a political, scientific, religious, philosophical, or trade-union aim and provided that the processing relates solely to the members of those organisations or institutions or to the persons who have a regular contact with them in connection with their activity and subject to providing appropriate safeguards of the processed data,
5) processing relates to the data necessary to pursue a legal claim,
6) processing is necessary for the purposes of carrying out the obligations of the controller with regard to employment of his/her employees and other persons, and the scope of processing is provided by the law,
7) processing is required for the purposes of preventive medicine, the provision of care or treatment, where the data are processed by a health professional subject involved in treatment, other health care services, or the management of health care services and subject to providing appropriate safeguards,
8) the processing relates to those data which were made publicly available by the data subject,
9) it is necessary to conduct scientific researches including preparations of a thesis required for graduating from university or receiving a degree; any results of scientific researches shall not be published in a way which allows identifying data subjects,
10) data processing is conducted by a party to exercise the rights and duties resulting from decisions issued in court or administrative proceedings.

The Court had to consider the question of whether the application met the conditions set in Article 29 of the PPD. The legal representative proved that, the disclosure of personal data of a person who registered the disputed domain because was necessary for the initation of the arbitration proceedings before the Court of Conciliation at the the Polish Chamber of Information Technology and Telecommunications. The Court noted that the arbitration proceedings are held in accordance with Article 1188 § 1 of the Civil Proceedings Code – CPC – (in Polish: Kodeks Postępowania Cywilnego) of 17 November 1964, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 43, item 296, with subsequent amendments. The proceedings before the Court of Conciliation starts with the lodging of the statement of claim (the suit), which means that the suit should comply with the conditions laid down in Article 187 § 1 of the CPC. Under that provision, the statement of claim should meet the requirements of the pleading, and it also shall include: clearly defined demand in matters of property rights and the value of the claim, unless the case concerns the amount of money. The suit shall include all facts justifying the request and, if necessary, to justify the jurisdiction of the court. In accordance with Article 126 § 1 pt. 1 of the CPC, every pleading shall also contain, inter alia, the designation of the court to which it is addressed, the name or names of the parties, their legal representatives and/or agents. Therefore, the essential element of the claim for infringement of personal rights is to show the person against whom the request is addressed, i.e. the defendant in future proceedings for infringement of personal rights, and defendant’s address. The VAC found that the request in the Home.pl case was fully justified. The Court also confirmed that Home.pl is the controller within the meaning of Article 7(4) of the PPD, because according to the agreement with NASK, Home.pl decides on the purposes and means of the processing of personal data related to people who registered domain names. Thus, the party of the case was Home.pl, not NASK.

Personal data protection, case II SA/Wa 1085/04

February 11th, 2010, Tomasz Rychlicki

In July 2003, the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection (GIODO) received a complaint in which a natural person, known as W.K. (personal data of the parties are removed from Polish courts’ judgments), requested the GIODO to issue an order to the Polish Internet company to reveal personal data of persons, against which the applicant wanted to initiate legal proceedings. The complaint showed that the online forum operated by the Internet company hosted defamatory content posted by persons using only nicknames.

W.K. proved that he had requested the Company to disclose full IP addresses of computers from which persons using only nicknames have sent messages to the online forum. The applicant also pointed out that the Regional Prosecutor’s Office refused to determine the perpetrators of the alleged defamation. The refusal was also upheld by the District Prosecutor’s Office.

W.K. pointed out that he brought a private accusation based on article 212 § 1 of the Criminal Code – CRC – (in Polish: Kodeks Karny) of 6 June 1997, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 88, item 553, with later amendments, to the Regional Court in K., against the persons who used given nicknames. The Court has issued an order in which it considered the private accusation legally ineffective because it included error in the form – i.e., no indication of names of defendants and their addresses, and W.K. did not clear these errors.

The GIODO has found that the purpose for which W.K. has applied for, i.e. the access to personal data, to assert his rights before the court, is legally justified. The use of these data by the applicant in the proceedings could not be considered as a violation of the rights and freedoms of persons whos personal data was collected because after the initiation of criminal or civil proceedings, personal data would be in a disposition the court.

The Company filed a complaint to the Voivodeship Administrative Court (VAC) in Warsaw. The Court in a judgment of 9 February 2005, case file II SA/Wa 1085/04, annulled the contested decision. The VAC held that the complaint was based on article 23(1) pt. 5 of the Polish Act of 29 August 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data – PPD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 29 October 1997, No. 133, item 883, unified text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 6 July 2002, No. 101, item 926, with later amendments.

1. The processing of data is permitted only if:
5) processing is necessary for the purpose of the legitimate interests pursued by the controllers or data recipients, provided that the processing does not violate the rights and freedoms of the data subject.

The court did not accept that the wording of this provision can be interpreted as a rule requiring a data controller to reveal personal data at the request of the person whose requested data does not concern. The basis for such claims available for third parties for purposes other than inclusion in the data collection, was provided in the article 29(1) and (2) of the PPD. This provision being in force until 1 May 2004, did not give rise to demand release of the data, if the controller/administrator of the data were private sector.

The Court also held that the imposition of the duty of the data controller can only be done when the information being available to the controller falls into the category of personal data as defined in article 6(1) of the PPD.

personal data shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person.

The requested information related to IP addresses of computers from which the messages were posted by certain people using certain nicknames. The Company argued that it does not require users of its forum to identify themselves in order to post information, what causes that, the IT administration system of the portal website hosting different forums, registers only IP address of computers of persons using the system, and it does not produce other data for identifying the user of a forum. Only a request to the operator of the telecommunication network could lead to the identification of the computer which was connected to the server hosting the portal and its forums. The Court cited English and Polish comentators and found that information, that without extraordinary and disproportionate effort can be “linked” with a specific person, especially by using readily and widely available sources, also deserve credit for their category of personal data. The identifiable person is defined in article 6(2) of the Polish Act of August 29, 1997 on the Protection of Personal Data – PPD – (in Polish: Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych), Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of October 29, 1997, No. 133, item 883, unified text published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of July 6, 2002, No. 101, item 926, with later amendments.

2. An identifiable person is the one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his/her physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity.
3. A piece of information shall not be regarded as identifying where the identification requires an unreasonable amount of time, cost and manpower.