Fine EUR 150,000 to multinational company in Greece for GDPR violations


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) in an unlawful and no transparent manner, in breach of Article 5 (1) (e); (a) b and c (GDPR) (the principle of objectivity and transparency), the personal data of its employees, as it gave them the false impression that they processed it in accordance with the legal basis of their consent in accordance to 6 (1) a’GDPR.In practice, it was processed on another legal basis, for which the employees were never informed.
3) as controller, although he was responsible, was unable to comply with and demonstrate compliance with Article 5 (1) of the GDPR in breach of the principle of accountability provided for in Article 5 (2) and he carried the burden of compliance on employees.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld...
Read more

Lawyer vs. Lawyer: Confronting Unethical Conduct Within the Profession

Image
Written by George Kazoleas, Lawyer One of the greatest difficulties in the daily practice of lawyer’s profession is the relationship with other lawyers and more specifically the unethical conduct of some lawyers. Although in all legal systems of the civilized world there is a legal framework, the so-called codes of ethics among lawyers, I would venture to say that these are probably the most unenforceable rules in practice. While some unethical behaviors, like misappropriating client funds, directly harm clients, others affect the relationships between lawyers. Here are some examples: • Misleading or Deceitful Communication: Making false statements about a case, misrepresenting facts to opposing counsel, or concealing relevant information. For many lawyers, the end justifies the means, so deceiving and lying to the opposing lawyer are the most common means to "Success".  It happens to me all the time that opposing lawyers tell me one thing when we're alone, say anot...
Read more

New President of the European Court of Human Rights

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has elected on 28.4.2025 Mattias Guyomar, Judge elected in respect of France, as its new President.  Mattias Guyomar succeeds Marko Bošnjak, Judge elected in respect of Slovenia. He will take up office on 30 May 2025. Read his bio here Furthermore, the Judge elected in respect of Armenia, Vahe Grigoryan, was formally sworn in in the Court's Main Hearing Room on 28.4.2025. Read as well:  Interventions in Justice System and the role of Artificial Intelligence / article by Giorgos Kazoleas, Lawyer in Cyprus
Read more

An overview of the regulatory framework on Gambling Services in the European Union

Image
written by Efi Thoma * The European Union (EU) does not have a harmonized, single regulatory framework for betting companies. Instead, the regulation of gambling services, including betting, remains largely within the competence of individual Member States.  This results in a diverse and often fragmented legal framework across the EU. While the EU facilitates some level of cooperation and sets overarching principles, the specifics of licensing, operational requirements, and consumer protection measures vary significantly from country to country. Despite the lack of a unified framework, several key principles and EU-level instruments influence the national regulations of betting companies. More specifically, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) guarantees the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services within the EU. These fundamental freedoms mean that Member States cannot unjustifiably restrict betting companies legally established in ano...
Read more

Depriving the Jewish Community of Thessaloniki of its ownership of a plot of land acquired before the Second World War was not lawful (ECtHR)

Image
In Chamber’s judgment in the case of Jewish Community of Thessaloniki v. Greece (application no. 13959/20) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the dismissal in 2019 of the applicant community’s demand to be judicially recognised as the sole owner of a plot of land on the grounds that it had been categorised as “enemy property” after the end of the Second World War – although the ownership of the plot had been transferred to them in 1934. The Court found in particular that the Court of Cassation’s 2019 interpretation of the relevant domestic legislation and its application to this case had not been foreseeable. It was not reasonable to expect the applicant community to have known that the property which had already come under its ownership in 1934 would be affected in 1950 and 1955 by the legislation concerning enemy...
Read more