Fine imposed for preventing the Supervisory Authority from performing an inspection
The President of the Personal Data Protection Office imposed a fine of PLN 20 000 on Vis Consulting Sp. z o.o. in liquidation with the seat in Katowice, a company from telemarketing industry, for making it impossible to conduct inspection. Additionally, the company’s owner is subject to criminal liability for this.
The President of the Personal Data Protection Office (UODO) decided to conduct inspection activities at the penalised company, in connection with the findings made in the course of another inspection performed at the company conducting telemarketing activities. It was established that the company has a cooperation contract with regard to outsourcing of telemarketing services with Vis Consulting Sp. z o.o. Therefore, the supervisory authority found it necessary to conduct inspection activities at the entity which actually operated the telephone calls and processed the data.
Unfortunately, the UODO’s inspectors, after prior notification on the planned inspection, did not find anyone at the address indicated in the National Court Register (KRS). On the spot, there was only a company which leased office space to Vis Consulting Sp. z o.o. (so called virtual office).
The inspectors managed, however, to contact Vis Consulting by telephone, and its proxy informed that the inspection would not take place.
Therefore, the President of the UODO concluded that the company in no way wished to cooperate with the personal data protection authority. On two consecutive days of the planned inspection activities, the company made it impossible to carry out the inspection twice. Furthermore, on the date on which the inspectors attempted to conduct inspection at Vis Consulting Sp. z o.o., its authorities decided to liquidate that entity.
In the opinion of the President of the Office, this company does not comply with the obligations relating to the processing of personal data and, at least intentionally, avoids to be subject of inspection by the supervisory authority. Thus the company infringed the provisions of the GDPR referring to cooperation with the supervisory authority and enabling it access to all personal data and any information.
Hence, the President of the UODO concluded that the conditions for imposing a fine on the company were satisfied. In determining the amount of the fine, the supervisory authority did not identify any attenuating circumstances affecting the amount of the fine.
In connection with suspicion of commission of an offence under Article 108 (1) of the Act on the Protection of Personal Data by the President of the Company, the supervisory authority notified the District Public Prosecutor’s Office in Katowice thereof. According to that provision, the prevention or hindering of conducting inspection of compliance with the personal data protection provisions shall be subject to a fine, restriction of personal liberty or imprisonment for up to two years. The Public Prosecutor’s Office has already lodged an indictment against the President of the Company to the court.