The Senate examined an administrative case in which an applicant requested compensation for damage caused by unlawful actual actions of the Consumer Rights Protection Centre, using and distributing his personal data in the video clip “Pārbaudi–Pērc–LietoTo sociālais eksperiments” without the applicant’s permission. The Senate recognized that the appealed judgment of the Regional Administrative Court in the part on compensation is based on incorrect legal considerations and annulled it in the relevant part and remitted the case for a new examination.

The Consumer Rights Protection Centre organized a social campaign, within the framework of which it published a video clip informing about the risks that consumers may face when purchasing a used car. Consumers were urged to check the identity and reputation of sellers, as well as to be careful, as dishonest traders may use unfair methods, trying to imitate popular experts. The main character of the video story imitated the applicant. The applicant objected to this.

The Regional Administrative Court found that the Consumer Rights Protection Centre had allowed unlawful data processing and imposed an obligation to stop it. In this part, the judgment entered into force. The Regional Administrative Court imposed a public apology as compensation for unlawful data processing. The applicant considered such compensation to be disproportionate to the damage caused and appealed the judgment in the relevant part.

The Senate concluded that the Regional Administrative Court’s considerations regarding the basis for compensation for damage were incorrect. Both the rules for the processing of personal data and the compensation award for unlawful data processing are provided for by the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance). The Court of Justice of the European Union has explained that a person seeking compensation for non-material damage must prove not only the infringement of the provisions of this Regulation, but also that he/she has actually suffered damage as a result of the infringement.

The applicant has pointed to the damage to reputation, honour and dignity. With regard to the existence of damage, which the Regional Administrative Court has not considered, several important considerations must be taken into account. In the opinion of the Senate, in circumstances where the General Data Protection Regulation allows a person to object to the processing of his/her data in various incomparably less significant cases, it is difficult to understand the position of the Regional Administrative Court of stating that publication of a large volume video clip contrary to the person’s clear objections, and moreover, the deliberate use of the person’s long-established public image in the relevant clip is perceived as a minor data processing infringement.

It should also be taken into account that the applicant is a publicly recognizable person who has developed his image in the long term, therefore in this case the impact on the applicant's image and, accordingly, on his honour and dignity may be more significant than in the case when a person is not publicly known. The Senate does not find any legal basis to believe that the applicant would therefore be assigned a mission or obligation to allow others to use his long-term developed image and reputation for such purposes and in a manner that the person does not want and does not agree with. Such use must be distinguished from journalistic interest and the public's right to obtain information about a person.

The Senate also did not agree that the content of the video story should be assessed only from the perspective of a "sufficiently observant" person. Here it would be appropriate to take into account that honour and reputation in society are also formed by the opinions of those people who do not delve into a several-minute long story at all, but rather watch it superficially or do not perceive the message of the video story as deeply as it was intended.

The Senate also drew attention to the fact that, when determining the compensation, the Regional Administrative Court took into account the substantiation (justification) indicated by the institution for the processing of data. Such considerations have been found inadmissible by the Court of Justice of the European Union, in response to the questions posed by the Senate. In determining the amount of compensation for damage, only the severity of the damage caused should be taken into account, and the amount of compensation should serve only as compensation for the damage.

Judgment of the Senate of 20 December 2024 in case No SKA-256/2024 (A420234319)

 

Ilze Butkus, Communication adviser of the Supreme Court

Telephone: +371 67020302; e-mail: ilze.butkus@at.gov.lv