CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juillet 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } Published on 26 August 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 5771/23 DYNAMI ZOIS against Greece lodged on 25 January 2023 communicated on 8 July 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the fine imposed to the applicant association, which is a political party that participated in the Attica regional elections of 2019, for sending political material to blind people, after having obtained their addresses and names from the National Federation of the Blind. In particular, in May 2019 and prior to the regional elections of 2019, the applicant association sent political material, written in Braille, to blind people in the Attica region. In September 2019, one of the recipients lodged a complaint with the Data Protection Authority, which, after requesting explanations from the applicant association, imposed a fine of 2,000 euros. It held more specifically that the personal data used by the applicant association constituted personal data of special categories within the meaning of Article   9 of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). While political communication constituted a legitimate aim for processing personal data, data relating to health could not be processed for that purpose without the subject’s consent pursuant to Article 9 § 2 GDPR. The applicant association lodged an application for annulment against the fine imposed on it, arguing that the matter was very important for blind people’s political participation. As grounds for annulment, it put forward that: a) that the Data Protection Authority had erroneously considered that the applicant association’s actions fell within the scope of GDPR; b) that the Data Protection Authority had erroneously interpreted and applied Article   4 (7) and (8) GDPR concerning the terms “controller” and “processor”; c) that the Data Protection Authority had erroneously interpreted Article 9 GDPR on processing of special categories of personal data, as the personal data used did not reveal any information on the recipients’ health; and d) that the Data Protection Authority had erroneously applied Article 14 GDPR. The Supreme Administrative Court, by its decision no. 1838/2022, rejected the applicant association’s application for annulment and confirmed the decision of the Data Protection Authority. The applicant association complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the fine imposed was in breach of its right to impart information. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant association’s right to freedom of expression, more specifically its right to impart information, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference with the applicant association’s right under Article 10 of the Convention prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2? Did the domestic courts strike a fair balance between the applicant association’s right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention and other people’s right to protection of their personal data? Did the domestic authorities provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the fine imposed on the applicant association, given their interpretation that the address of an individual taken from the registry of National Federation of the Blind constitute personal data of special categories within the meaning of Article   9 GDPR?