Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs – CJEU Judgment (Latvia, 2024)

The Consumer Rights Protection Centre ([https://www.ptac.gov.lv/en/about-us Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs] - PTAC) used distributed a video featuring a character imitating a well known journalist (the data subject). The campaign's aim was to make the consumers aware of risks associated with buying pre-owned cars. The PTAC didn’t obtain the data subject’s consent who opposed the making and distribution of that video. The data subject demanded PTAC to stop distributing the video and claimed compensation for the damage to his reputation. After PTAC rejected the data subjects request, the data subject initiated proceedings before District Administrative Court (Administratīvā rajona tiesa). The data subject claimed for compensation of non-material damage by an apology and payment of €2,000. The District Administrative Court found PTAC conduct was unlawful and ordered PTAC to pay €100 in compensation for non-material damage and to make a public apology. The Regional Administrative Court (Administratīvā apgabaltiesa), which heard an appeal, confirmed the finding that PTAC processed the data unlawfully, as there was no valid legal basis under Article 6 GDPR. As a result, PTAC was ordered to cease the processing. Moreover, the court also ordered the apology, under Article 14 of [https://likumi.lv/ta/id/110746-valsts-parvaldes-iestazu-nodarito-zaudejumu-atlidzinasanas-likums Law on compensation for damage caused by public authorities] (Valsts pārvaldes iestāžu nodarīto zaudējumu atlīdzināšanas likums), to be published on websites where the video was available. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the financial compensation for non-material damage. According to the court, the video was prepared to perform task in the public interest and the infringement itself was not of serious nature. Additionally, the court pointed out that the complicated nature of legal framework caused PTAC to misinterpret the applicable law. The data subject lodged an appeal before the Supreme