Enforcement · Hungarian National Authority for Data Protection and the Freedom of Information (NAIH) EN LLM context A cited markdown file you can paste into your AI assistant (ChatGPT, Claude, a RAG or project knowledge base) to ground it in this document. Contains: this document’s text, its sections with their topics, and the full text of every law provision it applies. Everything links back to its source on overview.legal — legal information, not advice.

Unnamed financial institution: Insufficient fulfilment of data subjects rights

€3,200 Fine
Unnamed financial institution
HUNGARY
Art. 5 GDPR Art. 13 GDPR Art. 17 GDPR Art. 6 GDPR
Retention Period Legitimate Interest Personal Data Insurance IP Address
Mar 4, 2019 Source

How it connects

Related across sources

Literature General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) ambiguity, national diversity and data protection officer certification: Implementing Art. 39(1) GDPR in France, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain Journal of Data Protection Privacy Guidance Guidelines 4/2019 on Article 25 Data Protection by Design and by Default Version 2.0 Adopted on 20 October 2020 EDPB Guidance Guidelines 1/2020 on processing personal data in the context of connected vehicles and mobility related applications EDPB Literature GDPR Implementation Series ∙ Hungary: Introduction to the GDPR Application and a Brief History of Data Protection European Data Protection Law Review Literature GDPR Implementation Series ∙ Spain: Preparations for a New Law on Data Protection to Implement the GDPR European Data Protection Law Review Literature GDPR Implementation Series ∙ United Kingdom: Heading Towards Brexit but with a Data Protection Bill Implementing GDPR European Data Protection Law Review

Full text

The fine was imposed in relation to a data subject's request for data correction and erasure. NAIH levied a fine against an unnamed financial institution for unlawfully rejecting a customer’s request to have his phone number erased after arguing that it was in the company's legitimate interest to process this data in order to enforce a debt claim against the customer. In its decision, the NAIH emphasised that the customer’s phone number is not necessary for the purpose of debt collection because the creditor can also communicate with the debtor by post. Consequently, keeping the phone number of the debtor was against the principles of data minimisation and purpose limitation. As per the law, the assessed fine was based on 0.025% of the company's annual net revenue.

Industry: Finance, Insurance and Consulting

Original document at the source www.naih.hu

Similar Content