Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effectiveness of Redress Mechanisms. Case study—Poland

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reloading Data Protection

  • 1819 Accesses

Abstract

The authors present the preliminary results of the national report on “Data protection: redress mechanisms and their use” conducted in Poland within the research project run by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (“FRA”). The article discusses the most interesting views and experiences voiced by respondents participating in the project, which were used to identify common problems with regard to the application of the data protection provisions. The general conclusion from the study is that the effectiveness of the data protection redress mechanisms in Poland is considerably low. The article outlines the overview of the redress measures available in Poland and attempts to identify the most serious barriers for the effective data protection, such as: the lack of educational activities and low legal awareness in this field, insufficient enforceability and complexity of data protection law and the limited access to professional legal aid.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.

  2. 2.

    FRANET is composed of National Focal Points in each EU Member State and Croatia, the aim of this network is to provide the Agency with comparable socio-legal data on fundamental rights issues to facilitate the FRA’s comparative analyses at EU level.

  3. 3.

    European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2010).

  4. 4.

    Special Eurobarometer 359 (2011).

  5. 5.

    European Commission (2012).

  6. 6.

    The fieldwork was conducted between January and August 2012 by the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights based in Warsaw which is FRA’s “National Focal Point” in Poland.

  7. 7.

    Article 47 of the Constitution: “Everyone shall have the right to legal protection of his private life and family life, of his honour and good reputation and to make decisions about his personal life”.

  8. 8.

    Article 51 of the Constitution: “1. No one may be obliged, except on the basis of statute, to disclose information concerning his person. 2. Public authorities shall not acquire, collect or make accessible information on citizens other than that which is necessary in a democratic state ruled by law. 3. Everyone shall have a right of access to official documents and data collections concerning him. Limitations upon such rights may be established by statute. 4. Everyone shall have the right to demand the correction or deletion of untrue or incomplete information, or information acquired by means contrary to statute. 5. Principles and procedures for collection of and access to information shall be specified by statute”.

  9. 9.

    The Constitution of the Republic of Poland (1997).

  10. 10.

    Personal Data Protection Act (1997).

  11. 11.

    The Code of Administrative Procedure (1960).

  12. 12.

    Article 18 of the Personal Data Protection Act.

  13. 13.

    Article 21 (1) of the Personal Data Protection Act: “A party may submit a motion to have their case reconsidered with the Inspector General”.

  14. 14.

    The Administrative Courts Procedure Act (2002).

  15. 15.

    Article 12 (3) of the Personal Data Protection Act.

  16. 16.

    Article 19a of the Personal Data Protection Act.

  17. 17.

    The Code of Criminal Procedure (1997).

  18. 18.

    The Civil Code (1964).

  19. 19.

    IGPPD (2012, p. 243–244).

  20. 20.

    The response of the Prosecutor General to the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (2012).

  21. 21.

    Pursuant to the Code of the Administrative Procedure and the Administrative Courts Procedure the IGPPD must issue an administrative decision within 30 days after receiving a complaint. In the course of 14 days after the date when the original decision is served on the party, the party may ask for reconsideration of the case by the IGPPD. Only after the second decision is issued and served on the party, the party has 30 days for challenging the decision before a Provincial Administrative Court.

  22. 22.

    Apostasy is currently understood as a conscious, voluntary and public defection from the Church. On 29 September 2008 the Polish Episcopal Conference laid down a procedure for persons wanting to make an act of apostasy in one of the Polish dioceses. Under this procedure an aspiring apostate shall deliver a statement drafted personally to the parish priest in his or her place of residence in the presence of two adult witnesses. The priest has an obligation to confirm the receipt of such a statement with his handwritten signature and a parish seal and to send the same to the diocesan curia which further instructs the priest to make an appropriate entry in the parish register of baptism. The note that a person has left the Church should be permanently entered on the margin of this person’s certificate of baptism kept in the register of baptism. Under the ecclesiastical law an entry of baptism must not be deleted from the register of baptism.

  23. 23.

    Article 43 (2) of the Personal Data Protection Act.

  24. 24.

    Apostazja.info.

  25. 25.

    Complaint ref. no. CHAP 2011(776) (2011).

  26. 26.

    The judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union (2003).

  27. 27.

    Article 43 (2) of the Personal Data Protection Act.

  28. 28.

    The judgement of the Warsaw District Court (2012). The judgement is not final. The appeal will be examined in April 2013.

  29. 29.

    Own work developed on the basis of data available at the IGPPD’s official website (2013).

  30. 30.

    The Act amending the Personal Data Protection Act and Certain Other Acts (2010).

  31. 31.

    Ministry of Administration and Digitalisation (2012, p. 165).

  32. 32.

    Wirtualne media.

  33. 33.

    For example such data are not provided in the IGPPD’s annual reports.

  34. 34.

    For example: Metro; Dziennik.pl; Dziennik Łódzki.

References

Legal Acts

  • Personal Data Protection Act, Poland. August 29, 1997. Journal of Laws 2002 No. 101, item 926 as amended (Ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych).

    Google Scholar 

  • The Administrative Courts Procedure Act, Poland. August 30, 2002. Journal of Laws 2002, No. 153, item 1270 as amended (Ustawa – Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi).

    Google Scholar 

  • The Act amending the Personal Data Protection Act and Certain Other Acts, Poland. October 29, 2010. Journal of Laws 2010 No. 229, item 1497.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Code of Administrative Procedure, Poland. June 14, 1960. Journal of Laws 2000 No. 98, item 1071, as amended (Kodeks postępowania administracyjnego).

    Google Scholar 

  • The Constitution of the Republic of Poland. April 2, 1997. Journal of Laws 1997 No. 78, item 483.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Civil Code, Poland. April 23, 1964. Journal of Laws 1964, No. 16, item 93, as amended (Kodeks cywilny).

    Google Scholar 

  • The Code of Criminal Procedure, Poland. June 6, 1997. Journal of Laws 1997, No. 88, item 555, as amended (Kodeks postępowania karnego).

    Google Scholar 

Judgments

  • Bodil Lindqvist case, Court of Justice of the European Union. November 6, 2003. Case no. C-101/01.

    Google Scholar 

  • X V. Centralne Biuro Antykorupcyjne, Warsaw District Court. April 26, 2012. Case no. IIC 626/11.

    Google Scholar 

Reports, Surveys, Communications

  • European Commission. 2012. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of regions, safeguarding privacy in a connected world, a European data protection framework for the 21st Century, COM (2012). 9. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. 2010. Data protection in the European union: The role of national data protection authorities. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inspector General for the Protection of Personal Data. 2012. The annual report of the inspector general for the protection of personal data for 2011. Warsaw: 2012. http://www.giodo.gov.pl/data/filemanager_pl/sprawozdaniaroczne/2011.pdf.

  • Ministry of Administration and Digitalisation, Społeczeństo informacyjne w liczbach. 2012 (Information society in numbers), Warsaw: 2012. http://mac.gov.pl/dzialania/jest-nowy-raport-spoleczenstwo-informacyjne-w-liczbach.

  • Special Eurobarometer 359. 2011. Attitudes on Data Protection and Electronic Identity in the European Union. Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

Press Releases

Websites

Other

  • Complaint to the European Commission, ref. no. CHAP 2011(776). 2011. Wrong implementation of Directive 95/46/EC—Article 43(2) of the Polish Personal Data Protection Act—lack of powers of the Polish Data Protection Supervisory Authority. (March)

    Google Scholar 

  • The response of the prosecutor general to the Helsinki foundation for Human Rights’ motion for public information. 2012. (8 May).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Zgoda 11, 00-018, Warsaw, Poland

    Dorota Głowacka & Beata Konieczna

Authors
  1. Dorota Głowacka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Beata Konieczna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dorota Głowacka .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Law, Science, Technology & Society (LSTS), Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Brussels, Belgium

    Serge Gutwirth

  2. Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society (TILT), Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Ronald Leenes

  3. Law, Science, Technology & Society (LSTS), Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Paul De Hert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Głowacka, D., Konieczna, B. (2014). The Effectiveness of Redress Mechanisms. Case study—Poland. In: Gutwirth, S., Leenes, R., De Hert, P. (eds) Reloading Data Protection. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7540-4_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation