Cooperation with DPAs
According to art. 31 GDPR the controller and the processor -also the DPO, art. 39(1)(d)- must cooperate with the DPA in the performance of its tasks.
Urząd Ochrony Danych Osobowych took it seriously and it exercised this power where C failed to provide info for the performance of its tasks (Art. 58(1)(e) #GDPR)
The President of the Personal Data Protection Office (UODO) imposed a:
– €1.100 fine on an individual entrepreneur running a non-public nursery and pre-school. Entrepreneur running a nursery and pre-school failed to provide the DPA with access to PD and other information necessary for the performance of its tasks – in this case for assessment whether the controller communicated a data breach to the DS The controller notified to the DPA a data breach and the latter sent three requests to the company to submit relevant explanations. Two of them weren’t collected on time, one was collected personally by the fined entity itself. The entrepreneur failed to respond to the requests of the President of the UODO. (Jul 20)
– €4.600 fine to Anwara Sp. Z o.o., which as a controller did not meet the obligation of cooperation with the DPA and did not provide any information it required for the performance of its tasks in the course of proceedings. The company twice ignored the written requests to provide explanations. Despite proper delivery of the letters, the company failed to provide any reasons for not taking action. (Feb 21)
– €2.600 fine to Smart Cities company from Warsaw for not cooperating with the DPA by failing to reply to its letter and failing to provide access to PD and other information necessary to perform its tasks. Hindering and preventing access to the information that the UODO requested from the Company and which is undoubtedly in its possession demonstrates a flagrant disregard for its obligations concerning cooperation with the supervisory authority in the performance of its tasks (Feb 21)
– €22.000 fine to Surveyor General of Poland (Główny Geodeta Kraju, GGK), after having conducted an administrative proceeding instituted ex officio in the case of imposition of an administrative fine for failure to provide the supervisory authority during the conducted inspection with access to premises, data processing equipment and means, and access to personal data and information necessary for the President of the Office for the performance of its tasks. Furthermore, GGK did not cooperate with the President of the UODO during that inspection. (Jul 20)
0 comentarios