Aspects of personal data processing by romanian civil courts acting in their judicial capacity

Author:Adrian Cristolovean
Position:LL.M. Attorney at law (Bucharest Bar), Musat & Asociatii
Pages:113-122
SUMMARY

Although the data protection supervisory authorities are not competent to supervise processing operations of courts when acting in their judicial capacity, the General Data Protection Regulation also applies to the activities of courts and other judicial authorities which must ensure compliance with the rules of this regulation. Therefore this paper aims to explore the processing performed by civil courts in their judicial capacity, without overlooking the impact of the internet age on the publication of personal data from pending cases and judgments. To this end we’ll analyse the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and the national legal framework regarding the processing of data by the courts, without overlooking a recent trend in dealing with processing operations performed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). At first glance it seems that our civil courts were left to their own devices as to data protection since the Romanian national supervisory authority is not competent to supervise processing operations of courts acting in their judicial capacity and the Romanian legislator did not entrust this mission to specific bodies within our judicial system. However despite the absence of a right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority or to an effective judicial remedy against a supervisory authority, the data subjects - plaintiffs and defendants - may resort to the right to an effective judicial remedy against the controller for the protection of their personal data processed by a civil court. Since the right to the protection of personal data is not an absolute right and it must be considered in relation to its function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, not always will prevail the rights of the data subject, or, better said, they will not be able to prevail before the balance tilts - sooner or later - in favour of the data subject.

 
CONTENT
Aspects personal data processing by Romanian Civil Courts… 113
ASPECTS OF PERSONAL DATA PROCESSING BY ROMANIAN
CIVIL COURTS ACTING IN THEIR JUDICIAL CAPACITY*
Adrian CRISTOLOVEAN**
Abstract: Although the data protection supervisory authorities are not competent to supervise
processing operations of courts when acting in their judicial capacity, the General Data Protection
Regulation also applies to the activities of courts and other judicial authorities which must ensure
compliance with the rules of this regulation. Therefore this paper aims to explore the processing
performed by civil courts in their judicial capacity, without overlooking the impact of the internet age
on the publication of personal data from pending cases and judgments. To this end we’ll analyse the
provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and the national legal framework regarding the processing
of data by the courts, without overlooking a recent trend in dealing with processing operations
performed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). At first glance it seems that our
civil courts were left to their own devices as to data protection since the Romanian national
supervisory authority is not competent to supervise processing operations of courts acting in their
judicial capacity and the Romanian legislator did not entrust this mission to specific bodies within
our judicial system. However despite the absence of a right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory
authority or to an effective judicial remedy against a supervisory authority, the data subjects –
plaintiffs and defendants – may resort to the right to an effective judicial remedy against the
controller for the protection of their personal data processed by a civil court. Since the right to the
protection of personal data is not an absolute right and it must be considered in relation to its
function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights, in accordance with the
principle of proportionality, not always will prevail the rights of the data subject, or, better said, they
will not be able to prevail before the balance tilts – sooner or later – in favour of the data subject.
Key words: Private Law, European Union Law, GDPR, civil courts, court proceedings, court
decisions, judicial activities.
Introduction
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)1 expressly refers to the
activity of the civil courts2 on several occasions. Firstly, recital (20) mentions that
* The article was prepared for the International Law Conference, "Current Issues within EU and
EU Member States: Converging and Diverging Legal Trends", 3rd edition, organized by the Faculty of
Law – Transilvania University of Braşov on the 29th-30th of November 2019. All links were last
accessed on 4 November 2019.
** LL.M. Attorney at law (Bucharest Bar) – Muşat & Asociaii (adrian.cristolovean@musat.ro).
Law Review special issue, Decembre 2019, pp. 113-122
114 ADRIAN CRISTOLOVEAN
while this Regulation applies, inter alia, to the activities of courts and other judicial
authorities, the competence of the supervisory authorities3 should not cover the
processing of personal data when the courts are acting in their judicial capacity.
Hence, in order to safeguard the independence of the judiciary in the performance
of its judicial tasks, including decision-making, civil courts don’t fall under the
control of ordinary supervisory authorities. However, Member States can entrust
the supervision of such data processing operations to specific bodies within their
judicial system, an aspect that the Romanian legislator did not consider at the time
of implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/6794.
Such specific bodies should, in particular: a). ensure compliance with the rules
of this Regulation (e.g. the obligation to keep records of processing activities and to
implement the principles of data protection by design and by default5), b). enhance
awareness among members of the judiciary of their obligations under this
Regulation, c). handle complaints in relation to such data processing operations.
The need to establish the aforesaid structures is substantiated by the fact that
courts – when acting in their judicial capacity – are also exempted from the
obligation to designate a data protection officer6, namely a person with expert
knowledge of data protection law and practices that should assist the civil courts to
monitor internal compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation,
including awareness-raising and training of staff involved in processing
operations.
1 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free
movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation),
published in the Official Journal of the European Union L 119 from 4th of May 2016.
2 Our analysis does not consider the processing of personal data by criminal courts, aspects
covered by Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on
the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent
authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal
offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, published in
the Official Journal of the European Union L 119 from 4 May 2016. This directive was transposed into
national law by Law no. 363 from 28 December 2018, published in The Official Journal of Romania, Part
I, no. 13 from 7 January 2019.
3 Autoritatea Naional de Supraveghere a Prelucrrii Datelor cu Caracter Personal in Romania,
established by Law no. 102 from 2 May 2005, published in The Official Journal of Romania, Part I, no.
391 from 9 May 2005.
4 Law no. 190 from 18th of July 2018 on implementing measures for Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with
regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data […], published in
The Official Journal of Romania, Part I, no. 651 from 26th of July 2018, doesn’t contain any provision
in this regard, nor any other law.
5 For further details see S.-D. Şchiopu, The obligation to keep a record of processing activities for
personal data, Revista român de drept al afacerilor no. 1/2018, p. 85-94; S.-D. Şchiopu, An Overview of
the Technical and Organisational Measures Necessary to Ensure the Effective Implementation of the General
Data Protection Regulation, Revista român de drept al afacerilor no. 2/2019, p. 53-56.
6 See recital (97) and article 37 (1) (a) GDPR.
Aspects personal data processing by Romanian Civil Courts… 115
At first glance, it seems that civil courts were left to their own devices as to
data protection given the absence of an obligation to designate a data protection
officer, the fact that the Romanian national supervisory authority is not competent
to supervise processing operations of courts acting in their judicial capacity and
our legislator did not entrust this mission to specific bodies within our judicial
system. However we have to bear in mind that Regulation (EU) 2016/679 applies
to the activities of courts and other judicial authorities, despite the
abovementioned derogations, and civil courts must ensure compliance just as any
other controller should7.
1. Personal data processing in court proceedings
The Code of Civil Procedure8 requires that the decision be delivered in public
hearing9 (article 402) and the court hearings are public, except for the cases
provided by law (article 17). Conducting civil proceedings without public presence
can happen according to article 213 (1) when the court, upon request or ex officio,
orders that they be carried out in whole or in part without the presence of the
public. This can happen when a public hearing would undermine morality, public
order, the interests of minors, the privacy of the parties or the interests of justice.
In a jurisprudential interpretation “[t]he principle of publicity means that the
civil proceedings are, as a rule, conducted before a court in a public hearing, in the
presence of the parties, but also of any other person who wishes to attend the
debate. Thus, the publicity takes place in court, not in virtual space, including the
presence of the audience in the court room. This does not mean that people who do
not want to attend the debates must subsequently be given access to information
on the various litigations that were pending before the court”10.
It is obvious and unavoidable that during the procedure before the civil court
personal data will be processed usually by disclosure11, especially those of the
7 Article 4 (7) GDPR: “«controller» means the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or
other body which, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of
personal data; where the purposes and means of such processing are determined by […] law, the
controller or the specific criteria for its nomination may be provided for by Union or Member State
law”.
8 Law no. 134 from 1 July 2010 regarding the Code of Civil Procedure, republished in the Official
Journal of Romania, Part I, no. 247 from 10 April 2015.
9 According to article. 396 (2) from the Code of Civil Procedure, when the decision was
postponed, it can also be delivered not in public hearing, but by making the solution available to the
parties through the court clerk.
10 Bucharest Court of Appeal, VIIIth section for administrative and fiscal litigation, civil ruling no.
10 from 19 March 2015, and S.-D. Şchiopu, Personal Data Processing. Retrieval of Information Available on
the Courts' Portal. Right of Opposition of the Data Subject. […] Principle of Publicity of Court Hearings,
Revista român de jurispruden no. 1/2018, p. 83 and 86.
11 Article 4 (7) GDPR: “«processing» means any operation or set of operations […], such as
collection, recording, organisation, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval,
116 ADRIAN CRISTOLOVEAN
plaintiff and the defendant, as part of the normal course of the judicial
proceedings, even maybe special (sensitive) categories of personal data12 whose
processing is in principle prohibited according to article 9 (1) GDPR, one exception
being precisely the need for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims
or whenever courts are acting in their judicial capacity. For instance a person's
name and surname are personal data, whether or not they are sufficient in a given
situation to identify that person13.
It is worth to mention that civil courts will not base the lawfulness of
processing on the consent of the data subjects but on other legal grounds14
provided by the General Data Protection Regulation such as the compliance with a
legal obligation to which the controller is subject or the performance of a task
carried out in the public interest, considering that justice is regarded as a public
service15.
However nowadays there is an exception to this rule. Some courts offer the
possibility to request the communication of documents in electronic format and
online access to the electronic court case file. As the party can truly choose the way
procedural documents are communicated – by email or traditional mail services –
and the court file can be consulted either online, either in physical format at the
court archive, the processing necessary for the use of these electronic means will be
based on the consent of the data subject according to article 6 (1) (a) GDPR. In this
specific case consent should be regarded as freely given because the data subject
has a genuine free choice since consent can be withdrawn without detriment, that
is, without losing access to the documents related to the court proceedings.
The civil court will also be responsible for the conformity with the principles
relating to processing of personal data pursuant to article 5 GDPR16 and must be
able to demonstrate, in accordance with the accountability principle, the
compliance of processing activities with Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or
combination, restriction, erasure or destruction”.
12 E.g. data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs,
data concerning health or data concerning a natural person's sex life or sexual orientation.
13 High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania, the panel for questions of law, decision no. 37
from 7 December 2015, published in the Official Journal of Romania, Part I, no. 51 from 25 January 2016.
14 D.-M. Şandru, Situations in which the processing of personal data is allowed without the consent of the
data subject, in A. Svescu (coord.), RGPD – Regulamentul general privind protecia datelor cu caracter
personal: comentarii şi explicaii, Bucharest: Hamangiu, 2018, p. 39-48.
15 See article 5 of Law no. 304 from 28 June 2004 on judicial organization, republished in the
Official Journal of Romania, Part I, no. 827 from 13 September 2005.
16 For further details see S.-D. Şchiopu, The Pillars of Personal Data Processing, Revista Universul
Juridic no. 6/2017, p. 96-101; D.-M. Şandru, Principles of Data Protection - from Theory to Practice,
Curierul judiciar no. 6/2018, p. 364-366.
Aspects personal data processing by Romanian Civil Courts… 117
2. The online publication of personal data from pending cases and
judgments
The publication on the courts’ portal (http://portal.just.ro/) of personal data
from court files is done in accordance with the Strategy for Computerization of the
Judicial System17. It concerned, inter alia, the transfer and publishing of public data
about court cases, decisions and rulings from ECRIS (The Electronic Court Register
Informational System) on the portal of the Ministry of Justice. This Government
Decision is considered to have created for the civil courts the legal obligation to
make available online on the courts’ portal personal data such as the names of the
plaintiffs and the defendants18.
Although the implementation of the strategy should have been aimed at
securing personal information, our national supervisory authority recommended to the
Ministry of Justice only to take “measures for the exact determination of personal
data that are strictly necessary to achieve the purpose pursued through the ECRIS
application, respectively the courts’ portal, provided the data must be adequate,
relevant and not excessive [in relation to the purposes for which they are
processed19] (posting only the name and surname of the defendants and plaintiffs
in the published solution)”20.
On the other hand, the Plenary of the Superior Council of Magistracy
considered that “it is necessary to elaborate a procedure that allows the deletion or
censorship of personal data from the portal of the courts in the case of archived
court files” and decided notify the Ministry of Justice, in its capacity as
administrator of the portal of the courts, with the indicated aspects21.
This decision was based on the following facts: a). personal data should only
be kept for the period of time necessary to fulfil the purpose for which they were
collected or for further processing; b). the content of the right to the protection of
personal data, which concerns the right of the natural person to the protection of
17 Approved by Government Decision no. 543 of 9 June 2005, published in the Official Journal of
Romania, Part I, no. 547 of 28 June 2005.
18 See for instance Constana Court of Appeal, section for administrative and fiscal litigation, civil
ruling no. 14 from 2 February 2015, available on http://rolii.ro/.
19 Recital (28) from Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24
October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on
the free movement of such data, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities L 281
from 23rd of November 1995.
20 S.-D. Şchiopu, The effectiveness of the right to be forgotten, in I. Alexe, N.-D. Ploeşteanu, D.-M.
Şandru (eds.), Protecia datelor cu caracter personal. Impactul proteciei datelor personale asupra
mediului de afaceri. Evaluri ale experienelor româneşti şi noile provocri ale Regulamentului (UE)
2016/679, Bucharest: Universitar, 2017, p. 191-192.
21 Press release of 17 May 2012 regarding the Decision of the Superior Council of Magistracy
Plenary to notify the Ministry of Justice with the proposal to delete or censor personal data from the
court portal in the case of archived files, available on https://www.juridice.ro/wp-content/uploads/
2012/05/CSM-17-05-date-cu-caracter-personal.doc.
118 ADRIAN CRISTOLOVEAN
the characteristics that lead to his identification and the correlative obligation of the
state to take adequate measures to ensure an effective protection; c). the purpose of
the court portal to ensure the transparency of the judicial procedures, through the
possibility of any interested person to follow the evolution of the cases submitted
to the court, by consulting the lists of sessions of the court, including the deadlines
and the solutions given in court cases; d). data processing, by posting the name of
the parties on the portal, which is justified by the purpose of the portal during the
trial of the case and which, is no longer required after the case has been resolved,
namely the archiving of the file; e). the fact that after archiving a file from the
courts' portal, it can still be identified by the number and object of the case22.
Since nothing happened in the meantime and the personal data continued to
appear on the portal after the court case files were archived, the Judicial Inspection
proposed not long ago the analysis by the Legislation and Documentation Service
within The Superior Council of Magistracy of the possibility to delete information
from courts’ computer databases and identifying the solutions that may be
available to them in the case of requests made by the parties regarding the removal
of identification data from these records and from the court portal, given the two
applications filed in 2016 at the High Court of Cassation and Justice23
As far as we know, until the archiving deadline is fulfilled, deadline
established in relation to the subject matter of the case, the data provided by the
ECRIS program continue to be in the electronic records of the files that are not
confidential and implicitly also remain published on the court's website24.
Consequently, at present the deletion of personal data from the portal does not
take place at the time of archiving the court files, but at the completion of the
archiving period.
As the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has also stated “even
initially lawful processing of accurate data may, in the course of time, become
incompatible with the directive [requirements laid down in Article 6 (1) (c) to (e) of
Directive 95/46, now repeated in Article 5 (1) (c) to (e) of Regulation 2016/679]
where those data are no longer necessary in the light of the purposes for which
they were collected or processed. That is so in particular where they appear to be
inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to those
purposes and in the light of the time that has elapsed”25.
22 Ibidem.
23 Superior Council of Magistracy, Judiciary Inspection, Control report no. 1619/IJ/917/DIJ/2016, 22
April 2016, http://old.csm1909.ro/csm/linkuri/19_07_2016__82228_ro.doc.
24 Ploieşti Court of Appeal, section for administrative and fiscal litigation, decision no. 91 from 10
February 2015, available on http://rolii.ro/.
25 CJEU, Judgment from 13 May 2014, C131/12, Google Spain, ECLI:EU:C:2014:317, published in
the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general), paragraph 93. See also CJEU, Judgment from
24 September 2019, C136/17, GC and Others (Déréférencement de données sensibles),
ECLI:EU:C:2019:773, published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general), paragraph
74, which reiterates this idea but also in the context of the General Data Protection Regulation.
Aspects personal data processing by Romanian Civil Courts… 119
The processing of personal data by keeping them on the portal after the
dispute is settled clearly violates the principles of minimisation26 and storage
limitation set by article 5 (1) (c) and (e) GDPR, posting the name of the parties on
the portal, which is justified by the purpose of the portal during the trial of the
case, is no longer necessary after the case has been settled, namely the archiving of
the physical court case file.
Therefore, pursuant article 17 (1) (a) GDPR, the data subjects should obtain
from the civil courts the erasure of data concerning them from the portal, since the
personal data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they
were processed27. However, the civil courts could show a proactive attitude
towards the compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and request the
administrator of the portal to implement technical measures that will ensure ex
officio the anonymisation of online data concurrently with the physical archiving of
the file.
Unlike the national legal framework, the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
Justice28 provide for more specific regulations regarding the anonymisation of
personal data. According to article 95 (1), in the proceedings pending before it, the
Court respects the anonymity granted by the referring court or tribunal. Also, if it
considers it necessary, the Court may also render anonymous data subjects
concerned by the case29. In order to maintain its effectiveness, the Court
recommends that the application be made at the outset of the proceedings, since,
on account of the dissemination of information concerning the case on the Internet,
granting anonymity becomes much more difficult if the notice of the case
concerned has already been published in the Official Journal of the European
Union30.
Not long ago, the Court of Justice of the European Union decided to go even
further and anonymise all requests for preliminary rulings involving natural
26 As one author said, this principle “is very important in Romania, since most laws provide
obligations for controllers that establish the legality of the processing, but clearly violate the data
minimization” – D.-M. Şandru, Old principles in new times. Critical remarks on two newly introduced
phrases in Article 5 of General Data Protection Regulation, Revista român de drept al afacerilor
no. 1/2018, p. 83.
27 Silviu-Dorin Şchiopu, General considerations on the right to the erasure of personal data, Revista
Universul Juridic no. 9/2019, p. 48.
28 CJEU, Consolidated version of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Jus tice of 25 September 2012, as
last amended on 9 April 2019, https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-
10/rp_en.pdf.
29 At the request of the referring court or tribunal, at the duly reasoned request of a party to the
main proceedings or of its own motion. When requested by a party, the application for anonymity
must be made by a separate document stating appropriate reasons.
30 CJEU, Practice Rules for the Implementation of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court adopted
by the General Court on 20 May 2015, https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/applicat ion/pdf/
2016-08/dpe_vc_en.pdf.
120 ADRIAN CRISTOLOVEAN
persons31. This concern arose in the context of the application of Regulation (EU)
2016/679, at which point the Court decided to increase the protection of the data of
natural persons in publications concerning requests for preliminary rulings.
Practically the Court followed the tendency, seen within the member states32, to
increase the protection for personal data against a background marked by the
proliferation of means of searching and disseminating information.
Consequently, in order to ensure the protection of the natural persons’ data
while guaranteeing at the same time that citizens are informed and have the right
to open courts33, the Court of Justice decided, in all requests for preliminary rulings
brought after 1 July 2018, to replace, in all its public documents, the name of natural
persons involved in the case by initials. Similarly, any additional element likely to
permit identification of the persons concerned will be removed. In the case of
decisions issued by the Romanian civil courts, before being published by the
Foundation “Romanian Legal Information Institute” (http://rolii.ro/)34 the name,
surname, nickname, date and place of birth, personal numeric code, address and
occupation of the data subjects are anonymised35.
However, the Court of Justice of the European Union stressed that its measures
seek to ensure appropriate protection for personal data only in the publications of
the Court of Justice and these measures do not affect the way in which cases are
handled by the Court or the usual progress of the proceedings, or, in particular, the
hearings, which will continue to follow the current arrangements.
3. The right of the data subject to an effective judicial remedy against a civil
court
Given that, according to article 55 (3) GDPR, common supervisory authorities
aren’t competent to supervise processing operations of civil courts acting in their
judicial capacity, neither the plaintiff, nor the defendant from a civil litigation can
lodge a complaint as data subjects with the Romanian supervisory authority. As a
consequence, there is also no question of an effective judicial remedy against a
31 CJEU, Press release no. 96/18: From 1 July 2018, requests for preliminary rulings involving
natural persons will be anonymised, Luxembourg, 29 June 2018, https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/
upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-06/cp180096en.pdf.
32 See also C. de Terwangne, Diffusion de la jurisprudence via internet dans les pays de l’Union
européenne et règles applicables aux données personnelles, 2005, http://www.crid.be/pdf/public/
5021.pdf.
33 „Tout en garantissant l’information des citoyens et la publicité de la justice” – in the French
version of the Press release no. 96/2018.
34 S.-D. Şchiopu, Online Published Civil Judicial Decisions in Romania - Balancing the Conflict between
the Principle of Publicity in Court Proceedings and the Right to Personal Data Protection, Jus et Civitas - A
Journal of Social and Legal Studies vol. IV (LXVIII), no. 1/2017, p. 30-31.
35 Article 3 of Decision no. 884 of 20 August 2013 issued by the Plenary of the Superior Council of
Magistracy, available at https://www.juridice.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/16_09_2013__
60647_ro.pdf.
Aspects personal data processing by Romanian Civil Courts… 121
legally binding decision of a supervisory authority concerning the data subjects,
considering that there is no competent authority who could issue such a decision.
When data subjects consider that their rights derived from data protection
have been infringed as a result of the processing of their personal data in
non-compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679, the only means available to the
plaintiff or the defendant in a Romanian civil suit is the right to an effective judicial
remedy against the controller – namely the civil court that infringed, for instance,
the data subjects' rights pursuant to articles 12 to 22 GDPR.
The lack of other remedies could be considered somewhat offset by the fact
that all requests regarding the defence of the rights guaranteed by the General
Data Protection Regulation are exempted from court stamp duty charges and the
law provides an alternative territorial competence36. The competent court is that
from the headquarters of the civil court – the controller – or from the habitual
residence of the data subject, so it will be most convenient for the data subjects to
exercise their rights in the latter jurisdiction.
Conclusions
Although the Code of Civil Procedure offers to data subjects such as the
plaintiffs and the defendants the possibility to request that the civil proceedings
are conducted without public presence, we cannot guess in what situations the
court will actually consider that the publicity of the hearing could really affect the
privacy of the parties. What we can say, however, is that the possible disclosure of
sensitive data such as those regarding health or data concerning an individual’s
sex life or sexual orientation, should determine the court ex officio to declare the
hearings closed to the general public.
Furthermore, since the decisions are usually delivered in public hearing, their
reading should not include such sensitive data. Taking into account the protection
of personal data and the protection of privacy, an example of good practice would
be to postpone the decision and deliver it not in public hearing, but by making the
solution available to the parties through the court clerk, in order to ensure, in
particular, the principle of data minimisation. Also, as we already mentioned, civil
courts could show a more proactive attitude towards their compliance with
36 See article 8 (3) of Annex I on the Procedure for receiving and resolving complaints from the
Decision of the President of the National Supervisory Authority for the Processing of Personal Data
no. 133 from 3 July 2018, published in The Official Journal of Romania, Part I, no. 600 from 13 July
2018. According to article 3 (5) and (6) of Law no. 102 from 2 May 2005 on the establishment,
organization and functioning of the National Supervisory Authority for the Processing of Personal
Data, republished in The Official Journal of Romania, Part I, no. 947 from 9 November 2019, the said
decision is normative and is mandatory for public authorities and institutions, private legal entities
and any other bodies.
122 ADRIAN CRISTOLOVEAN
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and request the implementation of technical measures to
ensure ex officio the anonymisation of online data on the courts’ portal concurrently
with the physical archiving of the file.
Not least, in order to achieve a certain level of awareness among members of
the judiciary of their obligations, civil courts should consider awareness-raising
and training the staff involved in processing operations as part of the appropriate
organisational measures taken in order to be able to demonstrate compliance with
the General Data Protection Regulation.