Court case Usl-4017/23-6 – Court Ruling (Croatia, 2024)
General GDPR enforcement action
This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
The data subject lodged a complaint with the Croatian DPA (“AZOP”) after their yard was filmed by a controller. The AZOP considered that this processing operation had no valid legal basis. On 3 October 2018, it ordered the deletion of every recording of the yard or public road and prohibited the controller from recording the yard in question. The decision indicated that “No appeal is allowed against this decision”. In accordance with Article 133(2) of the Croatian Act on General Administrative Procedure, the decision became enforceable by delivery of the decision to the party. The controller did not act on the decision. The data subjects thus submitted a request to the AZOP to adopt an enforcement decision. Meanwhile, the controller initiated an administrative dispute against the initial decision taken by the AZOP. The AZOP responded to the data subjects that the conditions for execution of the decision were not met because that decision faced an ongoing procedure before an Administrative Court. Following the conclusion of the administrative dispute, the data subjects asked the AZOP to adopt a decision on the enforcement of the decision. The AZOP did not take any action. The data subjects submitted a complaint with the Administrative Court of Zaghreb against the AZOP. The AZOP stated that it did not take any action because the controller indicated that the recordings were deleted and the data subjects did not prove the contrary. It made two arguments pursuant to the [https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2009_04_47_1065.html Croatian Act on General Administrative Procedure]. First, it noted that Article [https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2009_04_47_1065.html 139(1) of this Act] establishes an obligation to issue a decision when the executed party does not act according the enforcement decision. Second, the AZOP argued that the decision cannot be enforced because the statute of limitations period granting 5 years to bring an enforcement action un
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
The data subject lodged a complaint with the Croatian DPA (“AZOP”) after their yard was filmed by a controller. The AZOP considered that this processing operation had no valid legal basis. On 3 October 2018, it ordered the deletion of every recording of the yard or public road and prohibited the controller from recording the yard in question. The decision indicated that “No appeal is allowed against this decision”. In accordance with Article 133(2) of the Croatian Act on General Administrative Procedure, the decision became enforceable by delivery of the decision to the party. The controller did not act on the decision. The data subjects thus submitted a request to the AZOP to adopt an enforcement decision. Meanwhile, the controller initiated an administrative dispute against the initial decision taken by the AZOP. The AZOP responded to the data subjects that the conditions for execution of the decision were not met because that decision faced an ongoing procedure before an Administrative Court. Following the conclusion of the administrative dispute, the data subjects asked the AZOP to adopt a decision on the enforcement of the decision. The AZOP did not take any action. The data subjects submitted a complaint with the Administrative Court of Zaghreb against the AZOP. The AZOP stated that it did not take any action because the controller indicated that the recordings were deleted and the data subjects did not prove the contrary. It made two arguments pursuant to the [https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2009_04_47_1065.html Croatian Act on General Administrative Procedure]. First, it noted that Article [https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2009_04_47_1065.html 139(1) of this Act] establishes an obligation to issue a decision when the executed party does not act according the enforcement decision. Second, the AZOP argued that the decision cannot be enforced because the statute of limitations period granting 5 years to bring an enforcement action un
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case Usl-4017/23-6 in HR
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case Usl-4017/23-6 - Croatia (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: