The Hellenic Data Protection Authority imposed a fine on a company that was carrying out telephone promotion of advertising campaigns to subscribers who had previously raised objections to the company regarding such actions.
According to Article 11 of Law 3471/2006, as amended by Article 16 of Law 3917/2011, it is stated that:
“1. The use of automated calling systems, in particular through fax devices or email, and more generally the conduct of unsolicited communications via any means of electronic communication without human intervention, for the purposes of direct commercial promotion of products or services and for any kind of advertising purpose, is permitted only if the subscriber has given prior explicit consent.
2. The conduct of unsolicited communications with human intervention (calls) for the aforementioned purposes is not permitted if the subscriber has declared to the provider of the publicly available service that they generally do not wish to receive such calls. The provider is obliged to record such declarations free of charge in a special subscriber registry, which is made available to any interested party…”
Communications for the purpose of commercial promotion of products and advertising purposes are allowed only under the condition that a subscriber who generally does not wish to receive such communications has submitted a relevant objection declaration to the telecommunications provider. For this reason, all electronic communications providers maintain an up-to-date opt-out register of subscribers who have declared that they do not wish to receive such communications.
Recipients of unsolicited communications have the right to seek compensation for any material damage or monetary satisfaction for non-material (moral) harm.
The Council of State, with its decision no. 1845/2022, deemed lawful and justified the sanctions imposed on a company which, as it found, had made telephone calls for the purpose of promoting products to subscribers who were either registered in the opt-out register or had specifically informed the company that they did not wish to receive such calls.
It also held that subscriber complaints are accepted as substantiated solely based on the act of the complaint itself, since the called subscriber is the recipient of unsolicited disturbance. To prove such disturbance when submitting a complaint, the only available means is to record the external details of the call and its content, namely the calling phone number, the time and date of the call, the advertised product, and other details of the oral conversation.
