The complaint to the President of the Personal Data Protection Office was filed by a man who had received an official letter sent to his address, although it was from a completely different person who did not reside at that address (a person with the initials KK). The starosta, who sent the letter regarding the update of the perpetual usufruct fee, explained that he had obtained this address from the land registry and the PESEL database. The reason for the error was not established, but the President of the Personal Data Protection Office dropped the case, finding no violation of the law on the part of the starosta. This decision was appealed to the administrative court. First, the provincial court and recently also the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the complaints.
In the recently published justification for the ruling, the Supreme Administrative Court stressed that even if the letter was sent to the wrong address, the complainant’s data was not processed.
“There can be no violation of the protection of the complainant’s personal data insofar as the starosta sent correspondence addressed to another person to his address, since this address was also the residential address of another person – the recipient of the correspondence. As stated above, KK’s residential address is his personal data and not the personal data of the complainant. Therefore, a possible violation of the provisions on the protection of personal data could occur as a result of a complaint by the aforementioned company. person, not the complainant,” it can be read in the justification.
