The Department of Administrative Cases of the Senate (Supreme Court) has suspended legal proceedings in the case regarding the use of personal data and has submitted preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the interpretation of the General Data Protection Regulation. The proceedings in the case have been suspended until the Court of Justice of the European Union passes a ruling on these issues.

The Senate has requested the Court of Justice of the European Union to clarify the legal framework of Article 82, Clause 1 of the General Data Protection Regulation. This provision provides that any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement of this Regulation shall have the right to receive compensation from the controller or processor for the damage suffered.

The Senate requests the Court of Justice of the European Union to clarify whether the unlawful processing of personal data as a violation of this Regulation can in itself be an unjustified violation of a person's subjective right to data protection and harm caused to a person. The determination of compensation for the damage caused is also requested to be clarified. Firstly, it is asked whether, in the event when it is not possible to restore the condition that existed before the harm was caused, an apology can be determined as the only compensation for non-material damage. Secondly, whether grounds exist for determining a lesser compensation for damage if there are circumstances that indicate the attitude and motivation of the data processor, such as the need to perform a task in the public interest, difficulty in understanding the legal framework, the absence of an intention to harm the honour, dignity and reputation of a person.

 

The circumstances of the case

The administrative case has been initiated based on the application of a journalist and industry expert to stop and recognize as unlawful the actual actions of the Consumer Rights Protection Centre which uses and distributes applicant’s data in a social campaign video without the applicant's permission. The applicant, having not agreed with the way his image is used in the video, demands to stop showing the video, to receive public apology for damaging his reputation and to receive compensation for non-material damage.

The Regional Administrative Court, having reviewed the case under the appeal procedure, recognized the actual action of the Consumer Rights Protection Centre as unlawful, imposed the obligation to stop using and distributing the applicant's data via the video story, as well as to publicly apologize to the applicant on the websites where the Centre had published the video. The application for compensation for non-material damage was rejected, as the Regional Administrative Court considered that the video does not offend the applicant's honour and dignity, does not harm his reputation and does not include the sensitive data of the applicant. The applicant filed a cassation complaint against the Regional Administrative Court's judgment in this part, as he did not agree with the assessment of the violation of his rights and the damage caused by such violation, and the determined compensation.

Under the cassation procedure, it must be verified whether the Regional Administrative Court has properly assessed the severity of the violation of the rights of the applicant committed by the Consumer Rights Protection Centre and the existence of the damage caused by such violation, and whether the compensation determined by the Court can be considered adequate.

The panel of senators recognized that the Regional Administrative Court had based its conclusions on compensation of damages only on Latvian legislation and case-law, and such action does not comply with the General Data Protection Regulation. The judgment of the Regional Administrative Court referred to several aspects, regarding which the interpretation of Article 82 of the Regulation is essential. The courts of the Member States have already referred several questions about the interpretation of this Article, and the answers to them could be relevant in this case. However, the answers to questions that are not clear for the Senate in this case have not been previously provided, therefore the Senate considers it necessary to address the Court of Justice of the European Union and to request a preliminary ruling.

Case No SKA-817/2023; A420234319

 

Information prepared by

Rasma Zvejniece, the Head of the Division of Communication of the Supreme Court

E-mail: rasma.zvejniece@at.gov.lv, telephone: +371 67020396, +371 286522