Court case IECC 6 – Court Ruling (Ireland, 2024)

Court Ruling
DPA CircuitCourt5 July 2024Ireland
final
Court Ruling

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.

In August 2022, the claimant (the data subject) was on sick leave from their work. On 29 August 2022, the plaintiff was helping their mother-in-law trim a tree at her residential place. The claimant noticed a vehicle across the street with one of its occupants filming them with a phone. The plaintiff approached the vehicle and recognized the individuals, identifying them as senior managers from their company. The claimant subsequently expressed frustration, contending that they were being filmed without their consent and outside the work environment. The following day, the claimant was summoned to a meeting in which they were suspended with pay pending an investigation. During the meeting, the plaintiff asked about the recording, and was told not to focus on the video evidence, because there were credible witnesses to the incident in question. No such investigation took place. On 06 September 2022, the claimant attended a disciplinary hearing. On 12 September 2022, they were informed of their immediate termination, which was upheld after an appeal. It was claimed that the (unlawful) recording was not relied upon during these proceedings. The data subject complained, among others, that the defendant(s) wrongfully used, disclosed or processed its confidential information without consent or lawful purpose, thereby violating provisions of the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. The data subject’s claim seeks damages, including non-material damages for the related stress, financial detriment, and reputational damages, inter alia. The plaintiff also issued motions to direct the defendant to comply with their request for access to, and copy of, the recording. In response thereto, an affidavit was issued confirming that one of the senior managers neither possessed the recording nor transferred it to anyone. The Circuit Civil Court held that the defendants and its agents breached the data subject’s personal data rights, because there was a sufficient causal link be

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 6(GDPR)
Art. 5(1) GDPR
Art. 82(GDPR)

National Law Articles

§71 Data Protection Act
Decision AuthorityCircuit Court
Full Legal Summary

In August 2022, the claimant (the data subject) was on sick leave from their work. On 29 August 2022, the plaintiff was helping their mother-in-law trim a tree at her residential place. The claimant noticed a vehicle across the street with one of its occupants filming them with a phone. The plaintiff approached the vehicle and recognized the individuals, identifying them as senior managers from their company. The claimant subsequently expressed frustration, contending that they were being filmed without their consent and outside the work environment. The following day, the claimant was summoned to a meeting in which they were suspended with pay pending an investigation. During the meeting, the plaintiff asked about the recording, and was told not to focus on the video evidence, because there were credible witnesses to the incident in question. No such investigation took place. On 06 September 2022, the claimant attended a disciplinary hearing. On 12 September 2022, they were informed of their immediate termination, which was upheld after an appeal. It was claimed that the (unlawful) recording was not relied upon during these proceedings. The data subject complained, among others, that the defendant(s) wrongfully used, disclosed or processed its confidential information without consent or lawful purpose, thereby violating provisions of the GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. The data subject’s claim seeks damages, including non-material damages for the related stress, financial detriment, and reputational damages, inter alia. The plaintiff also issued motions to direct the defendant to comply with their request for access to, and copy of, the recording. In response thereto, an affidavit was issued confirming that one of the senior managers neither possessed the recording nor transferred it to anyone. The Circuit Civil Court held that the defendants and its agents breached the data subject’s personal data rights, because there was a sufficient causal link be

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Violations (1)

Cookies Placed Before Consent
critical

Non-essential cookies (tracking, advertising) are placed on the user's device before obtaining valid consent.

Art. 6(1) GDPR

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case IECC 6 in IE

This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Ruling Date

5 July 2024

Authority

DPA CircuitCourt

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
AI-verified and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case IECC 6 - Ireland (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: