Court dismisses data protection specialist's lawsuit against media 0 11

In 2018, the Constitutional Court initiated a case based on a lawsuit from a practicing lawyer in the field of data protection regarding a provision of the Road Traffic Law, which stipulated that information about the penalty points accumulated by a vehicle driver is publicly accessible. In describing this case, the media used information provided by the Constitutional Court and an official publication in the "Latvijas Vēstnesis" publication.

In 2021, the Constitutional Court ruled that establishing the status of publicly accessible information for data on penalty points accumulated by an individual in traffic does not comply with the Constitution.

A few years later — in the summer of 2023 — this man filed a lawsuit in the Riga City Court against several media outlets, stating that his personal data — name, surname, number of penalty points, date of registration of these points in the state register, and the fact of his appeal to the Constitutional Court — had been published by the media.

The plaintiff claimed that such actions by the media violated his right to privacy and caused him moral harm, therefore he demanded 1,400 euros in compensation for moral damages from each defendant.

None of the media outlets acknowledged the lawsuit.

"Latvijas Vēstnesis" explained that the personal data had been processed lawfully for journalistic purposes in compliance with data protection requirements, that only minimal and relevant information in the public interest was disclosed in the publication, and that later the plaintiff's identity was anonymized, thus his rights were not violated.

The other media outlets stated that they merely reprinted already publicly available information about the court proceedings from the Constitutional Court's press release and acted within the framework of freedom of speech, while the plaintiff did not prove the existence of moral harm.

In the lawsuit, the man argued that the media did not comply with the General Data Protection Regulation by republishing the information provided by the Constitutional Court about the initiated case.

The Riga District Court agreed that for the legitimate purpose that the media pursued in the public interest, there was no need to publish the plaintiff's personal data regarding the number of penalty points, as the content of the publications already made it clear what issue the constitutional complaint was about.

However, the court dismissed the claim for moral damages, acknowledging that the plaintiff did not prove that he suffered such harm. The court explained that a violation of the General Data Protection Regulation without evidence of negative consequences — suffering, pain, distress, damage to reputation, or other non-material losses — does not automatically grant the right to receive material compensation, meaning the plaintiff must prove that he actually suffered harm as a result of such a violation.

The Senate of the Supreme Court, dismissing the plaintiff's cassation appeal, also emphasized that it is insufficient to establish a violation in the field of data protection without proven harm and causation for compensation for moral damages. The occurrence of harm in connection with the unlawful processing of personal data is only a possible, not an automatic consequence of such processing, and as a result of a violation of the General Data Protection Regulation, harm does not always arise, the court stated.

Gabriela Shantare, a lawyer from the "Cobalt" law firm representing the media in this case, noted that this decision is an important signal for the entire media industry, as it confirms that even in situations where, in the court's opinion, data processing could have been carried out more thoroughly, the claim for compensation cannot be justified without a proper evidentiary basis for the actual occurrence of harm.