LegalPost.eu

The Greek Data Protection Authority has imposed a fine of 150,000 euros on PWC BS A.E. for violations of the General Data Protection Regulation. In particular, the Personal Data Protection Authority, upon a complaint, investigated on its own motion the legality of the processing of the personal data of employees of PWC BS (PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS BUSINESSSOLUTIONS SA) pursuant to which the abovementioned employees were forced to consent to the processing their personal data for three (3) distinct purposes. The Authority considered PWC BS as the controller: 1) has undergone unlawful processing, in breach of the provisions of Article 5 (1) (e); a) of the GDPR (principle of legality), the personal data of its employees, as it applied an inappropriate legal basis under Art. 6 (1)   a   GDPR (consent) instead of the appropriate legal basis for the performance of the contract, compliance with a legal obligation and the superior legal interest (Art. 6 (1), b, c' and g   GDPR). 2

By George Kazoleas, Lawyer LL.M. The silence of a suspect or accused person in criminal proceedings is a right enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 6 (1)). Unfortunately, in some legal systems and in their criminal practice, the defendant's silence is regarded as confession or acceptance of the charge, a practice that is fundamentally affecting the core of his defense rights. The right to silence is an important aspect of the presumption of innocence and its usefulness lies in protecting the accused person from self-incrimination. Monitoring compliance with the right to silence, as well as the related right of self-incrimination, is particularly critical for the offense, that a person is suspected or accused of having committed, but not for example in matters related to identifying a suspect or accused. The essence of the right to remain silent is to prohibit the suspect or the accused person from speaking, answering questions or providing info

In Εuropean Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway (application no. 37283/13) the ECHR held, by 13 votes to four, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of both applicants, a mother and her son. The case concerned the domestic authorities’ decision to remove a mother’s parental authority and let foster parents adopt her son. The Court found in particular that the main reason for the authorities’ actions had been the mother’s inability to care properly for her son, in particular in view of his special needs as a vulnerable child. However, that reasoning had been based on limited evidence as the contact sessions between mother and son after his placement in foster care had been few and far between and the psychologists’ reports out-dated. In addition, a review of his vulnerability had contained barely any analysis and no e