Published on 30 May 2022
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 23215/21
Velimir VLAISAVLJEVIKJ
against North Macedonia
lodged on 27 April 2021
communicated on 13 May 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s complaint that his personal data has been unlawfully collected and used by a private heat supplier.
The applicant initiated administrative proceedings before the Personal Data Protection Directorate against the supplier, arguing that it had collected his personal data (namely, his name, address, unique identification number, phone number and the surface area of his apartment) and had used it for the purpose of sending him invoices, although he had neither signed a contract with the said supplier, nor had agreed to it using his data in any other way. In support of his request, he submitted judgments from the civil courts in which it had been established that he had no obligation to pay the standing heating charge towards the supplier, as he had never been connected to the heating system.
On 16 October 2017 the Directorate dismissed his claim and held that his personal data had been collected lawfully by the private heat supplier, which had a legitimate interest in issuing invoices requiring him to pay the standing heating charge. The Directorate further established that the applicant’s data had been acquired by the heat supplier from its predecessor. On 11 January 2019 the Administrative Court quashed the Directorate’s decision and accepted the applicant’s claim that, inter alia, he had never had any contract with the heat supplier’s predecessor. However, following an appeal lodged by the Attorney General, the High Administrative Court on 2 October 2020 overturned the Administrative Court’s decision and upheld the findings of the Directorate. The court held that the applicant’s data had been properly collected and used, and stated that the debtor-creditor relations were irrelevant for the impugned proceedings which only concerned the use of the applicant’s personal data.
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the authorities failed to protect him against the unlawful collection and use of his personal data. The applicant argues that it was never established how the heat supplier had obtained his personal data, how it was collected and what its current use was, in particular, taking into account the fact that he had never been connected to any district heating network.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the State fail to discharge its positive obligation to protect the applicant from the alleged unlawful collection and use of his personal data by a private heat supplier?