Court case III OSK 5037/21 – Court Ruling (Poland, 2025)
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.
A Polish court upheld a decision regarding the processing of judges' membership declarations. The Ombudsman argued that the law requiring this declaration was unconstitutional, but the court found it was legally justified. This case shows the balance between public interest and privacy rights.
What happened
The court upheld the legality of processing judges' membership declarations for public interest.
Who was affected
Judges and prosecutors required to declare their membership in various associations.
What the authority found
The court ruled that the processing of this data had a valid legal basis under GDPR, emphasizing public interest.
Why this matters
This ruling illustrates the ongoing tension between privacy rights and public transparency. It serves as a reminder for organizations to consider both legal obligations and individual rights when handling personal data.
GDPR Articles Cited
View original scraped data
Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.
National Law Articles
In March 2020, the Ombudsman requested the DPA to initiate proceedings regarding several laws that introduced an obligation for judges and prosecutors to declare their membership in an association, which would then be included in a Public Information Bulletin. The declarations of membership included associations to churches, religions, political parties, and functions similar to trade unions. The Ombudsman argued that the law was unconstitutional. In addition, the Ombudsman requested that the DPA issue an order restricting the processing of this data, specifically to prohibit the publication in the bulletin until proceedings were complete. The DPA dismissed the case in April 2020. The DPA stated that Article 6(1) GDPR provided a legal basis for the processing based on a legal obligation (Article 6(1)(c) GDPR) and necessity for the public interest (Article 6(1)(e) GDPR). Finally, the DPA stated that it did not have the competence under Article 57 GDPR to decide on the issue of constitutionality; this was a matter the Ombudsman should have taken to the Constitutional Court. The Ombudsman appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance, arguing that the DPA should have also considered whether the law fulfilled the requirements of public interest and proportionality under Article 6(3) GDPR. The Court upheld the reasoning of the DPA, stating that law has a legal basis in accordance with the GDPR. According to the Court, GDPR does not give the DPA broader powers, since the this was not foreseen by the EU legislator or provided by national law. The Ombudsman appealed the case to the Provincial Administrative Court, who dismissed the case. The Ombudsman requested the Court to reconsider, or alternatively, the Supreme Administrative Court. In addition, the Ombudsman requested the Supreme Administrative Court to refer a preliminary question to the EU Court of Justice (CJEU). The Provincial Administrative Court referred the case to the Supreme Administrative Court. I
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case III OSK 5037/21 in PL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case III OSK 5037/21 - Poland (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: