II SA 3389/01

Y Limited Liability Company has sent, using a telephone number of Mr X, SMSes advertising entertainment TV programme B. Mr X has lodged with the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection, hereinafter called the Inspector General, a complaint then, requesting the issuance of a decision ordering blocking the data processing for the marketing purposes. The Inspector General refused Mr X to consider his complaint. This position has been also shared by the Supreme Administrative Court which stated that the subscription of the telephone number belonged to the lawyer`s office run by Mr X and not to Mr X himself. Therefore, Y Limited Liability Company has processed data pertaining to Mr X`s lawyer`s office, including its telephone number, and not Mr X`s personal data. The telephone number can not be referred to as personal data as it can not be used to identify a natural person; in this case it identifies an organisational unit. The Supreme Administrative Court also pointed out that the activity of the office meets all conditions necessary to recognise it as a business activity; therefore, the protection of its data can not be exercised on the legal grounds of the Act on the Protection of Personal Data. Upon taking a decision to identify his personal data with the data of his firm Mr X decided thereby to disclose them and simultaneously to weaken protection of these data.

Consequently, the Supreme Administrative Court has not recognised the violation of law in the Inspector General`s deed. It found that the entrepreneur can not demand as a natural person the protection of his/her personal data used not as personal data but as data of a firm, if he/she has included his/her personal data in the individual data pertaining to the firm; in other words, where these data overlap.