Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Court Ruling (Finland, 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.
On 24 January 2022, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the controller, notified the Data Protection Ombudsman of a data breach as per Article 33 GDPR. This data breach concerned spy malware, which has been installed on Finnish diplomats´ phones and allowed the exploitation of information stored on the phones. Four months later, the Data Protection Ombudsman decided that the controller did not comply with the notification limit, i.e. 72 hours as per Article 33(1) GDPR and did not provide for a reasoned explanation for such delay. Moreover, the controller did not comply with Article 34 GDPR due to the improper notification to data subjects (only oral and during a press release). The controller appealed the Data Protection Ombudsman decision. The Administrative Court held that the personal data breach in this case was posing a high threat to the rights and freedoms of individuals, within the meaning of Article 34(1) GDPR. While the controller did notify via press release the data subjects of the breach, the Court found that the controller did not notify the parties of the infringement without undue delay. Two main reasons were brought forward: the gravity and seriousness of impact on data subjects, and the fact that Finland did not provide any national law limiting the scope of application of Article 33 and 34 GDPR due to national security guarantees. The controller appealed the decisions of the Administrative Court to the Supreme Administrative Court. In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court elaborated on three main points: 1. The GDPR is not applicable for foreign and security policy matters. In this regard, the Court decided that, even if the GDPR expressly states that the processing of personal data relating to national security and the common Union foreign and security policy is excluded from the GDPR, in [https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2018/en20181050.pdf Article 2(1) of the Finnish Data Protection Act], the scope of the GDPR has been nat
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
On 24 January 2022, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the controller, notified the Data Protection Ombudsman of a data breach as per Article 33 GDPR. This data breach concerned spy malware, which has been installed on Finnish diplomats´ phones and allowed the exploitation of information stored on the phones. Four months later, the Data Protection Ombudsman decided that the controller did not comply with the notification limit, i.e. 72 hours as per Article 33(1) GDPR and did not provide for a reasoned explanation for such delay. Moreover, the controller did not comply with Article 34 GDPR due to the improper notification to data subjects (only oral and during a press release). The controller appealed the Data Protection Ombudsman decision. The Administrative Court held that the personal data breach in this case was posing a high threat to the rights and freedoms of individuals, within the meaning of Article 34(1) GDPR. While the controller did notify via press release the data subjects of the breach, the Court found that the controller did not notify the parties of the infringement without undue delay. Two main reasons were brought forward: the gravity and seriousness of impact on data subjects, and the fact that Finland did not provide any national law limiting the scope of application of Article 33 and 34 GDPR due to national security guarantees. The controller appealed the decisions of the Administrative Court to the Supreme Administrative Court. In its decision, the Supreme Administrative Court elaborated on three main points: 1. The GDPR is not applicable for foreign and security policy matters. In this regard, the Court decided that, even if the GDPR expressly states that the processing of personal data relating to national security and the common Union foreign and security policy is excluded from the GDPR, in [https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2018/en20181050.pdf Article 2(1) of the Finnish Data Protection Act], the scope of the GDPR has been nat
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Ministry of Foreign Affairs in FI
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Finland (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: