AZOP (the DPA) – Court Ruling (Croatia, 2024)

The applicant, A (the controller) raised a complaint for annulment of a decision issued by AZOP (the DPA). With that decision, the DPA held that the controller failed to display the video surveillance notice when posting the notice on video surveillance against Article 27 ZPOUZP. Also, it was established that the controller failed to display all relevant information and by doing so, violated Article 27(2) ZPOUZP. Also, in accordance with Article 51(1) ZPOUZP he was obliged to pay an administrative fine of €3,500. The controller argued the penalty was disproportionate, citing mitigating factors such as prior compliance, lack of harm to individuals, and immediate corrective actions. He also claimed the DPA failed to properly assess circumstances and should have issued a warning or lesser penalty instead. The court stated that under Article 51 ZPOUZP, an administrative fine of up to HRK 50,000 (€6,600) is mandatory for failing to properly mark premises as required by Article 27 ZPOUZP. Therefore, there was no legal basis for issuing only a warning or ordering the elimination of the irregularities. The court noted that the DPA has the legal authority to impose administrative fines as appropriate measures for each violation of rights. It further stated that the controller's challenge to the adequacy and choice of the fine was unnecessary and unauthorized. Furthermore, the controller argued that he had never received complaints regarding video surveillance or data processing, but the court deemed this irrelevant to his obligation to comply with legal provisions. While he emphasized his cooperation during supervision and claimed mitigating circumstances, the court found these efforts insufficient to impact the case. The controller ultimately acknowledged his failure but argued that any fine should be minimal. The court concluded that the DPA acted impartially and lawfully, basing its decision on relevant facts and evidence. The Court held that the controller's complaint for the annulment of a decision issued by the DPA was unfounded and, therefore, rejected. Furthermore, the Court held that the controller was not entitled to the reimbursement of costs incurred in the administrative dispute, as the claim was also dismissed.