Court case 4-25-326 – Court Ruling (Estonia, 2025)

Court Ruling
DPA TRRK26 June 2025Estonia
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.

A court ruled that Asper Biogene could not be fined for a cyberattack that exposed data from around 10,000 people. The court found that the company did not have proper security measures in place, but the legal rules at the time prevented penalties. This case shows the importance of strong data security practices for companies handling sensitive information.

What happened

Asper Biogene was targeted by a cyberattack that compromised the data of about 10,000 individuals.

Who was affected

Individuals whose genetic data was compromised during the cyberattack on Asper Biogene.

What the authority found

The court held that Asper Biogene could not be sanctioned due to procedural rules that required a specific individual to be responsible for the violation.

Why this matters

This decision highlights the need for companies to implement robust security measures to protect sensitive data. It also shows that legal frameworks can impact how companies are held accountable for data breaches.

GDPR Articles Cited

AI-verified

Art. 32(GDPR)
Art. 37(5) GDPR
Art. 38(6) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 32(GDPR)
Art. 37(5) GDPR
Art. 38(6) GDPR

Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.

National Law Articles

AI-identified

Criminal Code, Article 14 (now repealed)
Decision AuthorityTRRK
Source verified 20 March 2026
national law identified
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

Genetic testing company Asper Biogene (the controller) was targeted by a cyberattack from September 26 to November 10 2023. The attackers exfiltrated data for about 10,000 data subjects from 22 EU Member States, including genetic data. The DPA investigated the incident and found that the controller did not implement sufficient security measures. In particular, the controller allowed weak passwords, used weak encryption for passwords, and did not implement multi-factor authentication. The DPA found a breach of Article 32 GDPR and issued a €80,000 fine. In the same investigation, the DPA found that the controller’s DPO was the sole member of the Board of Directors and that he formally appointed himself for the role. Furthermore, he lacked the data protection expertise required for the role. The DPA fined the controller €5,000 for violating Articles 37(5) and 38(6) GDPR. The controller challenged the decision. The Court annulled the DPA's decision. With regards to the violation of Article 32, the Court held that the controller could not be sanctioned based on the procedural rules in effect at the time of the violation. Specifically, Article 14 of the Criminal Code (now repealed) only allowed companies to be prosecuted for GDPR violations that were committed by a specific individual on behalf of the company. With regards to the appointment of the DPO, the Court confirmed the violation but considered the fine to be disproportionate and annulled it. In this regard the Court considered, among other factors, that the controller had since appointed a new DPO, that the proceedings were sufficient punishment for the controller, and that there was no public interest in the proceedings. The Court also held that the infringement was minor in nature.

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 4-25-326 in EE

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

Details

Ruling Date

26 June 2025

Authority

DPA TRRK

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 4-25-326 - Estonia (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: