The President of the PL SA files a complaint against the decision to discontinue the investigation

The President of the Personal Data Protection Office, Mirosław Wróblewski, filed a complaint against the prosecutor’s decision to discontinue the investigation into video monitoring in the emergency room of a hospital in Przemyśl. The prosecutor discontinued the investigation, reasoning that since the recordings were unavailable and the camera from the illegal monitoring had been disposed of, the matter could not be resolved. The President of the Personal Data Protection Office points out errors in reasoning and an incorrect legal assessment of the circumstances. The case concerns the processing of personal data of patients and hospital staff.

The President of the Personal Data Protection Office learned from the Ombudsman that video monitoring had been operating in the emergency resuscitation room, originally installed without the knowledge or consent of the hospital management.

However, the prosecutor discontinued the investigation, stating that it was unable to determine who exactly had installed the camera. The President of the Personal Data Protection Office, however, has evidence including explanations from the hospital management, indicating that the camera was installed by the hospital IT specialist at the initiative of the head nurse. She suspected certain staff members of acting to the detriment of the hospital (stealing medication) and wanted to identify the perpetrator in this way.

In the context of the second part of the decision — which stated that there was insufficient evidence to justify the claim that data from the monitoring had actually been processed — the President of the Personal Data Protection Office notes that a flawed line of reasoning was applied. Although the recordings and the camera itself no longer exist, the collected evidence makes it clear why the camera was installed, and therefore it is possible to determine what could have been recorded while the monitoring was in operation.

The Prosecutor’s claims that 'it cannot be determined (…) what exact area was covered, which individuals were captured, whether the camera covered areas where patients were present, or whether any patient was recorded' are untenable. The monitoring could have recorded personal data of patients. Although the image capture may have primarily included only their likeness, in certain circumstances —during the provision of medical services — data concerning their health, which constitute a special category of personal data, could also have been processed.

It is also indisputable that the device recorded personal data of hospital staff — that was, after all, the purpose of its installation. However, the person responsible for thefts from the medicine cabinet was not the only one with access to it (otherwise, the monitoring — putting aside its legality — would have been pointless), nor the only person recorded by the monitoring.

Since the monitoring undoubtedly could record personal data of hospital staff and covered areas where both patients and personnel were present, the Prosecutor’s findings — stating, quote, 'there is no conclusive and reliable evidence confirming that the camera in question was operating and recording images from the resuscitation room, as no recordings or the camera itself have been preserved'—must understandably be met with strong objection by the President of the Personal Data Protection Office.

Firstly, it should be acknowledged that both the hospital staff and the individuals responsible for the processing of personal data in the hospital did, in fact, process personal data, although such processing under these circumstances was impermissible. Secondly, after analysing the evidence in the case, the President of the Personal Data Protection Office decided to file a notification of a crime under Article 107 of the Personal Data Protection Act. In light of the above, the decision by the prosecutor to discontinue the investigation should be subject to review by an independent common court.