In a controversial ruling that underscores the importance of privacy and data protection, Mirosław Wróblewski, the President of the Office for Personal Data Protection (UODO) in Poland, has imposed a fine of 75,000 zł on Jarosław Szymczyk, the former Chief of Police. This decision stems from serious breaches of data protection laws following the revealing of personal information about a woman known as Joanna from Krakow after she sought psychiatric help following a medical abortion.
The incident that led to this significant sanction occurred in April 2023. Joanna reached out to her psychiatrist to discuss her deteriorating mental health after using a termination pill. Concerned for her well-being, her psychiatrist contacted emergency services (112), indicating potential suicidal thoughts, which led to Joanna being brought to a hospital accompanied by police officers.
Upon her arrival at the hospital, officers reportedly confiscated Joanna’s laptop and phone, a move that raised eyebrows regarding the appropriateness of police conduct in such sensitive situations. During this episode, Szymczyk conducted a press conference wherein he disclosed personal and sensitive information regarding Joanna’s health status, her psychiatric treatment, and additional details about her life circumstances.
According to UODO, this disclosure of information occurred without any legal grounds and directly violated the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In the ruling, Wróblewski highlighted that such invasions of privacy pose significant risks, including potential harm to the individual’s reputation and control over their personal data.
"The unauthorized sharing of Joanna's private data represents not just a potential but a real risk for misuse by third parties, leading to discrimination and loss of dignity," the UODO stated. The office emphasized that during the press conference, Szymczyk acted irresponsibly as he released specific health-related data that was irrelevant to the police investigation, undermining the very principles of confidentiality that are essential in medical cases.
Furthermore, Wróblewski made it clear that the police cannot justify such actions under laws allowing the processing of personal data aimed at crime prevention or investigation, given that the nature of the case did not involve criminal conduct. The focus had merely been on Joanna’s mental health crisis, which does not constitute a criminal act.
This incident erupted in public discourse after media coverage shed light on the severity with which Joanna was treated by police officers. Reports revealed them escorting her to the ER and present during medical examinations, compounding her distress during an already vulnerable time.
During the initial confession, Joanna did not intend to harm herself but sought assistance due to her emotional plight following her abortion. The mental health community raised alarms regarding police intervention protocols, noting significant flaws that must be addressed to protect the rights of individuals seeking help.
The scandal prompted public outrage, leading to widespread criticism aimed at the police force and its handling of sensitive situations involving mental health patients. In response to media and public scrutiny, Szymczyk held a press conference where he expressed regret over the adverse circumstances surrounding Joanna. He claimed that his intention was to clarify the police's role in the situation, but his justification fell short as the action was deemed unwarranted.
Joanna, feeling victimized by the police actions, has since filed a lawsuit demanding 100,000 zł in damages for what she describes as an unjustified detention and violation of her rights. This legal pursuit aims to hold authorities accountable for their actions and prevent future breaches of personal data protection.
In the wake of the UODO ruling, there are indications that this case may escalate to a broader legal examination at higher judicial levels, including the possibility of involvement from the European Court of Human Rights, as Joanna’s rights and treatment continue to come under scrutiny.
The severity of the imposed fines on the police organization, rather than the individual implicated, underscores the responsibility public entities hold in ensuring compliance with regulations designed to protect personal data. UODO’s decision serves as both a punitive measure and an educational tool aimed at raising awareness about the importance of data privacy among law enforcement and other public agencies.
As the Krakow court prepares to review Joanna's case, it will undoubtedly become a critical point of reference concerning personal data protection and how law enforcement interacts with vulnerable individuals. Advocates for privacy rights are closely monitoring the developments, hoping that this situation prompts significant reforms in policy and practice within the police force and beyond.
