Eπιστολή στην ομάδα εργασίας Άρθρου 29 για τα προσωπικά δεδομένα

Athens, 16-7-2010

Dear Sirs,

With the present letter we wish to inform you of the Reg.No. 73735/ Γ2/ 23.6.2010 circular of the Secretary General of the Ministry of Education, Life Long Learning and Religion, which clarifies that the graduation certificates of Secondary School, according to Ministerial Decision No. 233.1/6/Γ2/2058/1986 (Gov.Gaz. B’ 317), must contain a record of the pupil’s religion.

You understand that such a practice, based on a Ministerial Decision of 1986 (long preceding the constitutional revision of 2001), violates fundamental rights of the pupils, mainly in relation to their religious freedom and the protection of their private data. These rights were reinforced by the constitutional revision and also with court decisions and with the decisions of independent authorities that followed.

It is also obvious that the pressure to reveal the religious beliefs is greater in the case of minors, and it leads to a stronger violation of their right to religious freedom, since any difference in religion from their school partners may cause discrimination and isolation in the small school community. Moreover, it is clear that sensitive data management is much more difficult for a pupil and a minor. Therefore, posing a question as to the religious beliefs of a minor directly violates both his/her religious freedom and his/her right to the management of sensitive personal data.

Given that the record of religion on the graduation certificate presupposes a relevant question, either to the pupil’s parents or to the pupil, it obviously leads to a violation of his/her right, as described above. This does note change, even if pupils or parents are offered the possibility of requesting that the relevant field remain blank, since this implies (independent of whether this is true or not) that this denial is due to the fact that the pupil is not a member of the prevailing? religion of Greece.

It must be noted that the graduation certificate is intended for use in many of the pupil’s future transactions as an adult. Therefore, the pupil in the future will be obliged to show to an indefinite number of third parties a document containing his religious beliefs (or his denial to answer the relevant question). The analogy with the identity card is obvious.

It is also certain that the record of pupils’ religion on graduation certificates does not serve any public interest. There is no justification, therefore, for maintaining an anachronistic institution, which violates fundamental rights of the pupils (and will continue to violate them in the future, in adulthood).

We direct this letter to you as a competent authority, so that you may take action concerning this administrative practice that violates constitutional rights. Due precisely to the strong violation of these rights, and to the clear path indicated by the Decisions of the Hellenic Data Protection Authority and the Council of State, we hope that you will see to this issue by immediate priority.

Sincerely,

For the Atheist Union Secretariat

Attached:
1. Circular 73735/ Γ2/ 23.6.2010 of the Secretary General of the Ministry of Education, Life Long Learning and Religion,

To: Hellenic Data Protection Authority
HDPA Reg. No. Γ / ΕΙΣ / 4454 / 16-7-2010

Letter – Report of the Atheist Union of Greece
contact@atheia.gr
P.O. Box. 67609
Pefki 15103

Athens, 16-7-2010

We communicate to you our letter – report to the Ombudsman of 16-7-2010 with Registry Number 20031 / 2010. This report contains, in our opinion, issues of your competence. We therefore request that you take all relevant legal action.

We direct this letter to you as a competent authority, so that you may take action concerning this administrative practice that violates constitutional rights. We request that you examine the issue in view of the private data protection, which is violated by the practices of State Administration, as described in our report.

Sincerely,

For the Atheist Union Secretariat

Attached:
1. Letter – Report to the Ombudsman, Reg.No. 20031 / 2010.
2. Circular 73735/ Γ2/ 23.6.2010 of the Secretary General of the Ministry of Education, Life Long Learning and Religion[/spoiler]

Athens, 07-2-2011
Reg.No.: Γ/ΕΞ/1003/07-02-2011

To: Atheist Union of Greece

Subject: Report of the Atheist Union of Greece to the HDPA
Re.: Reg.No. Γ / ΕΙΣ / 4454 / 16-7-2010 document of the Atheist Union of Greece

In response to your report Reg.No. Γ / ΕΙΣ / 4454 / 16-7-2010 concerning the practice of the Ministry of Education, Life Long Learning and Religion to record the pupils’ religion on the graduation certificates of Secondary School, we informi you of the following:

In answer of similar reports that had been submitted to the Authority in the past, the Authority has issued Decision No. 77A/2002, attached to the present document. According to the above mentioned Decision, the Authority had directed a recommendation to the Ministry of National Religion and Education (as then named) calling it undertake the modification of the relevant regulations and to take all necessary measures, in a reasonable time space, in order that religion would not be recorder, nor should it be permitted to be recorded, on the graduation certificates ot Primary and Secondary education pupils.

We remain at your disposal for any clarification or information

The President
Hristos Geraris

The proponent
Tania Kyriakou
Lawyer, Ph.D.[/spoiler]

To: European Committee

Date: January 15, 2011

Subject: Public consultation on the Commission’s comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union

For easier reading the text is divided into the following parts:
I. Summary
II. Proposals for improving the Directive
III. Transgression of the Directive (general presentation)
IV. Proposals for dealing with transgression
V. Transgression of the Directive (detailed presentation)

I. Summary

For improving the Directive we propose:

1. Abolition of all state records containing religious beliefs
Religion is a matter of conscience; it concerns only the private life of the citizens, and should play no part in their dealings with the state.
Even if it were considered necessary for the state to concede certain rights to the citizens according to their religions, a legal declaration of the interested party is sufficientfor claiming those rights. No permanent record is necessary.
2. Prohibition of declaring the religion of a minor
A minor has neither the maturity nor the spiritual development required in order to be aware of the graveness of religious choices and to comprehend fully the content of a religious faith.
Therefore, no declaration of religion should be accepted on behalf of a minor.

For dealing with transgressionsof the Directive we propose:

1. That the European Committee addresses a recommendation to the governments of Member States, asking them to conform to the dictates of the Directive on Personal Data, both concerning the harmonization of state legislation and concerning the enforcement of such legislation, emphasizing the second.
2. That all Member States organize compulsory information campaigns, directed to 1) public services that may keep such records, 2) religious and other organisations that may keep such records, 3) the citizens. The campaigns directed to organisations may take place via state documents, and those directed to the citizens via the mass media.
3. That all Member States organize compulsory information seminars for public servants involved in data keeping.

Below there follow our proposals and documentation in detail.

II. Proposals for improving the Directive

1. Abolition of all state records containing religious beliefs

We propose that the recording of religion be abolished from all state records and documents. Religion is a matter of conscience; it concerns only the private life of the citizens, and should play no part in their dealings with the state.

A person’s religious beliefs are a matter of conscience, not form; they are known only to the person itself and they are subject to change at any time. The only person capable of declaring them is the person concerned, and this declaration should be accepted and respected.

All citizens should have equal rights and receive equal treatment on part of the state. Religious beliefs should not entail discrimination of any kind. Therefore, registering the citizens’ religion in state records is redundant and abusive.

Even if it were considered necessary for the state to concede certain rights to the citizens according to their religions, a legal declaration of the interested partyis sufficient for claiming those rights. No permanent record is necessary for certifying a person’s religion.

2. Prohibition of declaring the religion of a minor

Inasmuch as the registering of religious beliefs is still permitted, we propose that the registering of religion in the case of minors, as well as the declarations of a minor’s religion on part of any adult, be prohibited.

Conscious choice of a religion requires a spiritual development which is concluded only in adulthood. Nobody can predispose the religion of a minor, neither parents of custodians, nor teachers, nor priests, nor state representatives. A minor’s upbringing in a given environment in which he follows certain religious beliefs and participates in religious ceremonies in accordance with his parents’ convictions does not imply an integration to a religion, because of the lack of a conscious choice on part of the minor.

Minors cannot be considered to belong to a religion. No procedure, either religious ceremony or declaration of an adult related to the minor, should entail an integration of the minor to a religion. The certificates of religious ceremonies issued by religious organizations should not be accepted by the state as a certificate of religion or of name giving, and should not be registered in state records.

The above view is supported by the formal Opinion 678/91 of the Greek State Legal Advisory Service, according to which the change of religion:
“requires a will capacity on part of the person, which does not necessarily coincide with the capacity for legal transaction, because the change of religion is not a legal transaction. Namely the requirements are: a mature age (although with no further specification) which would certify, taking into account the general spiritual development of the person in question, that he/she is aware of the graveness of this act, and a declaration of will, free from any violence or mental illness or other disorder of his/hers spiritual functions, which would hinder awareness of this act.”

Obviously, the initial choice of religion must meet exactly the same requirements as a change of religion. A minor has neither the maturity nor the spiritual development required in order to be aware of the graveness of religious choices and to comprehend fully the content of a religious faith. Therefore, according to the abovementioned legal Opinion, no declaration of religion should be accepted on behalf of a minor.

III. Transgression of the Directive (general presentation)

Religion is actually recorded at city registries, municipal rolls and males’ registries (Presidential Decree 850/1976), the school register (PD 201/1998, article 6) and on primary and secondary education graduation certificates (and in spite of Decision No. 77A/2002 of the Hellenic Data Protection Authority dictating abolition of the inclusion of the field “religion” on such certificates, Greek legislation has not yet been changed to reflect this), at army registries and certificates, possibly also at other public services and documents we are not aware of.

Record of religion at the above services does not serve any purpose, nor does it facilitate the claiming of citizens’ rights, as far as we know.

Moreover, removal of personal data from such records is not at all easy. Citizens are not properly informed by public servants, they ignore their rights, and when they attempt to remove their data they often meet obstacles. During a recent information campaign of the Atheist Union of Greece concerning the right to remove the record of religion from city registries, we were told that in two registry offices the citizens’ petitions were rejected, in spite of the fact that they were in perfect accordance with the law, while in other registries there was ignorance concerning the legal procedure. Such phenomena inhibit the control of citizens on the processing of their sensitive personal data.

There have also been cases of public servants filling in the field “religion” of citizens as “Christian Orthodox” without the consent of the interested party, as in the case of a citizen who had removed the record of religion from the city registry and later found out that some public servant had “corrected” what he must have considered an “omission”, filling it in by his own initiative, probably due to ignorance of the procedure.

Religion is also recorded in parish registries of the Church of Greece(we do not know if there is a central record). This is of great importance because, due to the practice of child baptizing, the religion of minors is recorded. The result is a record of sensitive personal data of the citizens who as adults may change religious beliefs but fail to remove their data from this record, either from ignorance or from neglect or because there is no streamlined procedure. We consider that all these records should be destroyed and their keeping prohibited, as it serves no purpose. If the Church wished to keep a record of its members, this record should comply with legal requirements and include only data of adult persons.

The Hellenic Data Protection Authority has not been informed of the keeping of all aforementioned registries, nor is it known whether they are kept according to legal requirements.

IV. Proposals for dealing with transgression

From the above we may conclude that there is a great lack of information and control on the subject of correct keeping and processing of personal data records (sensitive or no). We therefore suggest:

1. That the European Committee addresses a recommendation to the governments of Member States, asking them to conform to the dictates of the Directive on Personal Data, both concerning the harmonization of state legislation and concerning the enforcement of such legislation, emphasizing the second.
2. That all Member States organize compulsory information campaigns, directed to 1) public services that may keep such records, 2) religious and other organisations that may keep such records, 3) the citizens. The campaigns directed to organisations may take place via state documents, and those directed to the citizens via the mass media.
3. That all Member States organize compulsory information seminars for public servants involved in data keeping.

Below there follow cases of transgression of the Directive on Personal Data on part of the Greek State.

V. Transgression of the Directive (detailed presentation)

Transgressions at schools

School records

In Greece, during school enrollment, schools collect from parents/custodians the following data of the students for the School Record: place of birth, citizenship, religion, mother’s and father’s profession, mother’s and father’s literacy level. In the case of foreigners, nationality is also recorded.
When some datum is lacking from the Record, it may even happen that the School Principal enter in the class during teaching time and ask the children their parents’ profession. At other times the class teacher may undertake this task.
Parents/custodians and their children whose data are collected are never informed on the purpose of this collection, the identity of the data controllers, and the way to claim their rights to access and correction. They also do not know to whom these data may be transferred.

The data collected are obviously excessive, redundant and not at all necessary. The possible claim of good intentions on part of the Ministry, such as giving proper attention to students with cultural or language difficulties, cannot be accepted, because the teacher in his/hers daily contact with the student will easily determine such issues during the first week of class. Likewise, the collection of data on the academic level of the parents, their profession and their working status does cannot be claimed to serve the purpose of giving special attention to students with financial problems, because education is free of charge for all students and no further attention is called for.

Concerning the sensitive personal datum of religion, registered in the abovementioned records, there is a paradox: the Greek Constitution recognises the Christian Orthodox Church as “prevalent religion” of Greece and in lack of other evidence, all students are considered to be Christian Orthodox. Religion class in public education is a compulsory subject taught in a confessional and catechist way. Churchgoing and morning prayers are also compulsory, by Laws and Presidential Decrees. It would therefore stand to reason that this datum not be collected, even before the issuing of Directive 95/46 EC. Nevertheless it was collected and unfortunately still is collected, in spite of the formal harmonization of state legislation with community legislation by means of Law 2472/1997, which established the Hellenic Data Protection Authority (HDPA).

In 2002 the HDPA by Decision 77A directed a recommendation and warning to the data controller of the Ministry of Education, specifically asking a) that the field “religion” not be included in graduation certificates of primary and secondary school, and b) that parents desiring their children to be exempted from religion class not be required to reveal their religious beliefs, and that they should be permitted to claim this right for reasons of conscience without further specifications.

ΑInstead of conforming, since then, the Ministry:

a) Regarding the field “religion” in school graduation certificates:
– Has issued Circular Γ2/131757/22-11-2004 which states that: “…2.Concerning the recording of Religion in the redaction of the certification of graduation, we inform you that, according to Circular Γ2/61723/13-6-2002, the attribute Christian Orthodox is to be recorded, unless a formal declaration according to Law 1599/86 has been submitted stating the opposite.”
– Has corrected the omission of the recording of religion with Circular 73735/Γ2/23-6-2010, which states that “…concerning the graduation certificates of Secondary education, we remind you that the form of these certificates is determined by Ministerial Decision No. 233.1/6/Γ2/2058/1986 (Governmental Gazette Issue 317, Β’) and includes a record of the student’s religion…”
– Has answered our related question on the subject as follows (document No. Φ.7/730/162311/Γ1): “…Should [the parents] desire that religion not be recorded on the graduate certificate or other education degrees, this should be stated on their part by a formal declaration presented at the school.”

Concerning the exemption from religion class:
– eight (8) years after the issuing of Decision 77A/2002 of the HDPA,
– following a series of contradicting Circulars, which neither clarified the issue nor helped parents, students and teachers,
– following an exchange of correspondence between the Minister of Education and the Ombudsman,
– following a storm of questions on behalf of political parties in Parliament
the Ministry’s position on the subject is still unclear.
To this day the most recent Circular in vigor, Φ12/977/109744/Γ1, states: “We inform you that non Orthodox students, namely members of a different religion or creed, who according to Circular No. 104071/Γ2/4.8.2008 of the Ministry of National Education and Religion are exempted from religion class for reasons of conscience…” This phrase implies that only non Christian Orthodox students have the right to be exempted, thus dictating the necessity of disclosing religious beliefs in order to claim the right to exemption.

Is should be mentioned that not only are interested parties not provided with adequate information on their rights, but they are also often faced with School Principals who attempt to discourage pupils from claiming the right to exemption. This attitude is a result of the policy of all Ministers who have served at the Ministry of Education in the past, along with the corresponding governments. Faced with a political risk, nobody dared to comply with the EC Directive on personal data and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning religious freedom.

Part of the responsibility, however, lays with the HDPA, because it has never exerted the intervening power assigned by article 28 par.3 of Directive 95/46. It never implemented any sanctions for lack of compliance with Decision 77A and at this moment various students have school certificates with a blank in the field “religion”, a fact which renders them subject to discrimination in the job market or otherwise, since most of their schoolmates have certificates recording “christian orthodox”.

Another equally important omission on part of the HDPA concerns the handwritten Pupil and Progress Records (PPR) which are being kept for a decade now. A Circular of the Ministry dated May 2010 mentions that “…The old PPR will remain in vigor until the last student therein inscribed has graduated…”. This means that the old PPR will remain in vigor at least until academic year 2014-2015. In the old PPR religion was recorded, while in the new PPR it will not be recorded.

Article 32 of Directive 95/46/EC, however, allows a twelve (12) year margin for conformation with its articles. This means that by 2007 all data processing which took place in handwritten records, including the PPR, should conform to Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Directive. Greece has not conformed with this, continues to violate the Directive up to this day by collecting sensitive data, and will continue to violate it for at least 8 more years, long past the deadline.

Transgressions in the army

Military service is compulsory for Greek citizens, according to Article 4 of the Constitution. During enlistment, declaration of religion is compulsory. During collection of this sensitive personal datum, no explanation is given for the purpose of this collection, no information is supplied concerning processing, and since military environment is intimidating, young men hesitate claiming their right to withhold this declaration.

Military service includes compulsory churchgoing (most military camps have a temple of the “prevalent religion” on their grounds). In this way the state intervenes in the soldiers’ conscience, even of Christian Orthodox, extending military discipline even to religious practice. Therefore, there is no real option of not declaring a different religion should this be the case, because otherwise the soldier would find himself participating in ceremonies of a creed to which he does not belong.

The Ombudsman has commented on religion in the Enumeration Sheet (Conclusion 11478.02.2.1), has pointed out the existence of two contradicting acts of the HDPA, but having no authority over the HDPA, he is limited to commenting:
The HDPA issues permission 1271/21.6.2001 to the General National Military Staff for keeping a record with the soldiers’ sensitive data “after investigating the case of religion recording in enlisting documents… has judged that the processing by the Armed Forces of the datum of religion, declared by the enlisting men in the Enumeration Sheet, is necessary and legitimate in view of the purpose of the processing, and therefore does not violate the clauses of Law Ν. 2472/97. …Processing of the datum of religion should have as a sole purpose the facilitation of personnel administration and logistics.”.
However, in its more recent Decision 87/20.8.2002, concerning religion recording on the application form of military school candidates, the HPDA judges that “obviously the armed forces need not know the religion of the candidates for military schools, unless this is connected with events of a religious nature (e.g. oath), in which case the declaration of the student that he does not wish to participate in such events is sufficient. Therefore, a previous recording of religion, independent of specific events, does not serve the purpose of the kept record, while at the same time it is in conflict with religious freedom, since it leads to revelation of religious belief to no purpose. In view of the above, recording of religion in application forms for military schools is not legal.”.

To this day, the situation has not changed, and no clarification has been made as to why there is such a discrimination between men voluntarily enlisting to military schools (who do not have to declare their religion) and men compulsorily enlisting for military service (who are obliged to declare their religion).

Religious oath and revelation of religious/philosophical beliefs

– While the European Court for Human Rights has convicted Greece since February 2008 for violation of Article 9 (religious freedom) of the European Treaty on Human Rights, by the compulsory revelation of religious beliefs of citizens in order to be sworn by civil oath (case of Alexandridis vs. Greece),
Link
– While the National Committee for Human Rights had looked into the matter of the abolition of religious oath in the past (2005 and 2006), following the conviction of Greece on the aforementioned case, it announced on May 29, 2008, a relevant opinion stating that public authorities cannot intervene into a person’s private life by imposing a compulsory declaration of religious beliefs, and it suggested 9 modifications of the existing legislation,
Link
– While on December 2008 the President of the Three-Judge Administration Council of the Court of First Instance opines that the existing legislation “appears to violate the freedom of religious conscience”.
Link

* The Member of Parliament of the Popular Orthodox Alert party, Mr. Alexandros Chrusanthakopoulos submitted question No. 314/19-1-2010 to the Parliament asking: “Is the overriding of Article 3 of the Constitution – which states that the prevalent religion is Orthodox Christianism – and the abolition of religious oath a matter of priority for the government?”
According to the answer of Mr. I.Panaretos, State Secretary of the Ministry of Education, to the Parliament: “No. I remind that the priorities of the government were determined by the Program Declarations of the Prime Minister to the Parliament.”
Link
On the basis of the argument that “the country is actually going through perhaps the greatest crisis of its history”, on January 2010 the abolition of religious oath was not a priority, and so:
* On June 2010 Greece was again convicted by the ECHR (case of Dimitras and Others), again because the plaintiffs were obliged to reveal their religious beliefs in order to be sworn to court by a civil oath. In this decision a recommendation is also made to Greece, on the basis of Article 46 of the ETHR (court decisions being of a compulsory enforcement), to modify the legislation so that it will be in harmony with the Treaty and similar violations be avoided at the future.
Link
** On the same day, June 3, 2010, the ECHR announced to our country two new complaints against recording of religion among other personal data in court documents and during religious oath required for sworn testimony.
Link
* On June 10 the National Committee for Human Rights refers again to the subject of religious oath by a letter to the Minister of Justice, Transparency and Human Rights, calling on him to undertake “the necessary measures so that obligation of oath, wherever it is included, becomes compatible with the right to religious freedom as established by the Greek Constitution and the European Treaty on Human Rights.”
Link
* To this day, Articles 217, 218 and 220 of the Penal Code are in vigor, violating religious freedom, as if the decision of the ECHR had never been issued (Dimitras and Others vs. Greece).
Link (pg. 14)
* Similarly, Article 236 of the Penal Code, referring to the interpreter’s oath, has not been modified, the result being that the forms completed for certifying the employment of an interpreter in court include the field “religion”, as can be seen in the case of Yorgo Papadopoulos.
Link

The issue of the conformation of Greece to the decision of the ECHR and the respect of religious freedom will be discussed in the 1108th meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which will take place on March 2011.
Link

Even though the decision of the decision ECHR on the case of Buscarini and Others v. San Marino (judgment 18 February 1999) is invoked in the relevant opinion (2008) of the National Committee on Human Rights (GNCHR),
Link
an opinion to which the Committee refers again in a more recent letter (2010) to the Minister of Justice, a few days after the conviction of Greece in the case of Dimitras and Others:
Link

* the Prime Minister and almost all Members of Parliament following the national elections of 2009 took a religious oath. Those who did not take a religious oath became the subject of comments on the media and the internet.
Link
* The President of the Republic, reelected on 2010, took a religious oath (in spite of his participation in the group of 53 who in 1998 had suggested the oath modification for the next Constitutional Reform)
Link

For reasons that exceed political cost and entail the established political-religious context, violation of politicians’ religious freedom continues, since under the pressure of a possible political strain, they undertake the established oath. Moreover, in this case, there is a paradox: whoever does NOT undertake a religious oath, reveals the fact that he holds different religious beliefs. Therefore:

* On December 2010, during the oath of the elected Municipal and Regional Authorities taken before assuming their charges, those who chose a civil oath were led to an indirect revelation of their religious/political beliefs (namely, the fact that they are not Christian Orthodox).
This brings them to the difficult position of starting their five years’ service hard pressed by the religious-oriented group of the media and the people, to whom the enactment of public will is inseparable from faith to the “prevalent religion”. Indeed, many citizens wrote personal letters of protest to those elected who did not take a religious oath, reproaching them for not revealing their religious/political beliefs before the elections.
Link

On conclusion, we thank you for your attention, hoping to have contributed to the new comprehensive approach of the Commission on personal data protection in the European Union.

The Secretariat of the Atheist Union of Greece[/spoiler]

Minister’s Office Reg.No. 12831/24-12-2010
To:
Ministry of Education, Life Long Learning and Religion
1. the Minister Ms. Anna Diamantopoulou
2. the Controller for the Processing of Personal Data as defined in Article 2 of Law 2472/97 (GC A 50)

Cc: Hellenic Data Protection Authority

Subject: Revision of Directive 95/46/EC – Records of sensitive personal data

Date 24-12-2010

Dear Madam and Sir,

With the double quality of Greek and European citizens and in view of the public consultation of the Committee concerning personal data in anticipation of the revision of Directive 95/46/EC
Because it is our intention to participate in it and we desire to submit documented opinions,
Because both the time-limit of 3 years and that of 12 years provided in Article 32 of Directive 95/46/EC have expired,
Because since December 2009 the Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union and with it the Charter of Fundamental Rights are legally binding to all Member States,
Because the next Parliament may be revisory and we desire to propose to political bodies certain changes to the Constitution, taking into account your answers,

We request that you inform us of the following, concerning the records of sensitive data on religious and philosophical purposes that you keep,
a) Which is the natural or legal person, or public authority, service or body that processes them, who – if any – is its representative, and with what specific criteria where they assigned?
b) Are the purpose and manner of processing determined by legal or administrative acts, national or community, and if so, which are they?
c) What are the purposes of the processing of sensitive data on religious or philosophical beliefs?
d) What is their source?
e) Who are the recipients or the recipient categories of the sensitive data on religious or philosophical beliefs?
f) Is the supply of sensitive data on religious or philosophical beliefs is obligatory or not, and if yes, and what are the possible consequences of denial to supply them?
g) Is there an interchange of “documents” containing sensitive data on religious or philosophical beliefs with other “public sector bodies”, who are these and what is the purpose of this interchange? (the quoted terms are to be interpreted as in Law 3448/2006, according to Directive 2003/98/EC)
h) From which year onward is the processing of this sensitive data no longer contained exclusively in manuscript documents in your Ministry?
i) Does a transfer of sensitive data on religious or philosophical beliefs take place to and from third countries, and if so, what is the purpose of this transfer?
j) Has your Ministry informed the Committee of the national law provisions it establishes in the sector ruled by Directive 95/46/EC and if so, which are they?

Moreover, we would like a clear justification for:
1) the omission of the Ministry to comply with Decision 77A/2002 of the HDPA, even though it was issued 2 years after the time limit set by Article 32, par. 2 of Directive 95/46/EC
2) the omission of the Ministry to take the necessary actions for the annulment of Presidential Decrees 200 and 201 of 1998, Ministerial Decision 233.1/6/Γ2/2058/1986 (Gov.Gaz.17, B’) and any other legal documents that are contrary to the concepts of Directive 95/46/EC

In conclusion, we consider necessary to remind you that your answers – or the lack of such – will be communicated, as foresaid, to the consultation of the Committee for personal data, which expires on January 15, 2011. Obviously we will need time to study them before we can express our position, therefore we hope for an immediate response on your part.

Sincerely,

For the Atheist Union Secretariat

From:
Atheist Union of Greece
P.O.Box. 67609, 15103 Pefki
tel. 6980789422
contact@atheia.gr

Minister’s Office Reg.No 10494/24-12-2010
To:
Ministry of Interior, Decentralisation and Electronic Governance
1. the Minister, Mr. Yannis Ragousis
2. the Controller for the Processing of Personal Data as defined in Article 2 of Law 2472/97 (GC A 50)

Cc: Hellenic Data Protection Authority

Subject: Revision of Directive 95/46/EC – Records of sensitive personal data

Date 24-12-2010

Dear Sirs,

With the double quality of Greek and European citizens and in view of the public consultation of the Committee concerning personal data in anticipation of the revision of Directive 95/46/EC
Because it is our intention to participate in it and we desire to submit documented opinions,
Because both the time-limit of 3 years and that of 12 years provided in Article 32 of Directive 95/46/EC have expired,
Because since December 2009 the Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union and with it the Charter of Fundamental Rights are legally binding to all Member States,
Because the next Parliament may be revisory and we desire to propose to political bodies certain changes to the Constitution, taking into account your answers,

We request that you inform us of the following, concerning the records of sensitive data on religious and philosophical purposes that you keep,
a) Which is the natural or legal person, or public authority, service or body that processes them, who – if any – is its representative, and with what specific criteria where they assigned?
b) Are the purpose and manner of processing determined by legal or administrative acts, national or community, and if so, which are they?
c) What are the purposes of the processing of sensitive data on religious or philosophical beliefs?
d) What is their source?
e) Who are the recipients or the recipient categories of the sensitive data on religious or philosophical beliefs?
f) Is the supply of sensitive data on religious or philosophical beliefs is obligatory or not, and if yes, and what are the possible consequences of denial to supply them?
g) Is there an interchange of “documents” containing sensitive data on religious or philosophical beliefs with other “public sector bodies”, who are these and what is the purpose of this interchange? (the quoted terms are to be interpreted as in Law 3448/2006, according to Directive 2003/98/EC)
h) From which year onward is the processing of this sensitive data no longer contained exclusively in manuscript documents in your Ministry?
i) Does a transfer of sensitive data on religious or philosophical beliefs take place to and from third countries, and if so, what is the purpose of this transfer?
j) Has your Ministry informed the Committee of the national law provisions it establishes in the sector ruled by Directive 95/46/EC and if so, which are they?

In conclusion, we consider necessary to remind you that your answers – or the lack of such – will be communicated, as foresaid, to the consultation of the Committee for personal data, which expires on January 15, 2011. Obviously we will need time to study them before we can express our position, therefore we hope for an immediate response on your part.

Sincerely,

For the Atheist Union Secretariat

From:
Atheist Union of Greece
P.O.Box. 67609, 15103 Pefki
tel. 6980789422
contact@atheia.gr

Athens Office of Relations between MDN and the Public, Reg.No. 55807/24-12-2010
To:
Ministry of National Defense
1. the Minister, Mr. Evangelos Venizelos
2. the Controller for the Processing of Personal Data as defined in Article 2 of Law 2472/97 (GC A 50)

Cc: Hellenic Data Protection Authority

Subject: Revision of Directive 95/46/EC – Records of sensitive personal data

Date 24-12-2010

Dear Sirs,

With the double quality of Greek and European citizens and in view of the public consultation of the Committee concerning personal data in anticipation of the revision of Directive 95/46/EC
Because it is our intention to participate in it and we desire to submit documented opinions,
Because both the time-limit of 3 years and that of 12 years provided in Article 32 of Directive 95/46/EC have expired,
Because since December 2009 the Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union and with it the Charter of Fundamental Rights are legally binding to all Member States,
Because the next Parliament may be revisory and we desire to propose to political bodies certain changes to the Constitution, taking into account your answers,

We request that you inform us of the following, concerning the records of sensitive data on religious and philosophical purposes that you keep,
a) Which is the natural or legal person, or public authority, service or body that processes them, who – if any – is its representative, and with what specific criteria where they assigned?
b) Are the purpose and manner of processing determined by legal or administrative acts, national or community, and if so, which are they?
c) What are the purposes of the processing of sensitive data on religious or philosophical beliefs?
d) What is their source?
e) Who are the recipients or the recipient categories of the sensitive data on religious or philosophical beliefs?
f) Is the supply of sensitive data on religious or philosophical beliefs is obligatory or not, and if yes, and what are the possible consequences of denial to supply them?
g) Is there an interchange of “documents” containing sensitive data on religious or philosophical beliefs with other “public sector bodies”, who are these and what is the purpose of this interchange? (the quoted terms are to be interpreted as in Law 3448/2006, according to Directive 2003/98/EC)
h) From which year onward is the processing of this sensitive data no longer contained exclusively in manuscript documents in your Ministry?
i) Does a transfer of sensitive data on religious or philosophical beliefs take place to and from third countries, and if so, what is the purpose of this transfer?
j) Has your Ministry informed the Committee of the national law provisions it establishes in the sector ruled by Directive 95/46/EC and if so, which are they?

In conclusion, we consider necessary to remind you that your answers – or the lack of such – will be communicated, as foresaid, to the consultation of the Committee for personal data, which expires on January 15, 2011. Obviously we will need time to study them before we can express our position, therefore we hope for an immediate response on your part.

Sincerely,

For the Atheist Union Secretariat

From:
Atheist Union of Greece
P.O.Box. 67609, 15103 Pefki
tel. 6980789422
contact@atheia.gr

Reg.No. Γ / ΕΙΣ / 7783 / 28-12-2010
To: the Hellenic Data Protection Authority

Subject: Revision of Directive 95/46/EC – Records of sensitive personal data

Date 28-12-2010

Dear Sirs,

We hereby communicate to you our letters to Ministry of Education, Life Long Learning and Religion Θρησκευμάτων (Minister’s Office Reg.No. 12831/24-12-2010), of the Ministry of Interior, Decentralisation and Electronic Governance (Minister’s Office Reg.No. 10494/24-12-2010), and of the Ministry of National Defense (Athens Office of Relations between the MND and the Public, Reg.No. 55807/24-12-2010) for your information.

Also,
– According to Article 19, par. 5 of Law 2472/1997 we request access to the following records concerning the above mentioned Ministries and kept at your Authority: Recording and Processing, Permits, Interconnections, Data Transfer Permits.
– According to Article 19, par. 7 of Law 2472/1997 we request the issuing of a provisional order for the immediate, complete suspension of the function of the records with sensitive personal data kept in the above mentioned Ministries, until the issuing of your final decision for, we hope, destruction of these records.

Sincerely,

For the Atheist Union Secretariat

Attached:
1. Letter to the Ministry of Education, Life Long Learning and Religion (2 pages)
2. Letter to the Ministry of Interior, Decentralisation and Electronic Governance (2 pages)
3. Letter to the Ministry of National Defense (2 pages)[/spoiler]

HDPA Reg.No. Γ / ΕΙΣ / 1019 / 8-2-2011
To: the Hellenic Data Protection Authority

Subject: Revision of Directive 95/46/EC – Records of sensitive personal data

Date 8-2-2011

Dear Sirs,

Following our letter with your registry No. Γ / ΕΙΣ / 7783 / 28-12-2010 and subject: Revision of Directive 95/46/EC – Records of sensitive personal data,

– in view of the competences of the Data Protection Authority, as defined in Directive 95/46/EC
– since as an association (Article 28.4 of Directive 95/46/EC) we exercised our right to access, according to Article 12 of Law 2472/1997, with our letters sent to the Ministries on December 24 – copies of which were sent to you attached to the aforementioned letter – and received no reply within the time limit of fifteen days,
– given that the issue concerns records whose keeping either is already known to you or ought to have been notified to you, for example,
Ministry of Interior: Citizen’s Registry (Ληξιαρχείο), Municipal Roll (Δημοτολόγιο), Male’s Registry (Μητρώο Αρρένων),
Ministry of Education: Pupil’s Registry and Progress Book (Βιβλίο Μητρώου και Προόδου μαθητών),
Ministry of Defense: Enlistment Enumeration Sheet (Δελτίο Απογραφής Στρατευσίμων),

We denounce to your Authority the omission of the data controllers of the Ministry of Education, Life Long Learning and Religion, of the Ministry of Interior, Decentralisation and Electronic Governance, and of the Ministry of National Defense to fulfill their obligations, we request that you inform us of the administrative penalties you shall impose, if any, and we require your immediate intervention for receiving a response to the questions we submitted to them.

In this intervention and the control you will exercise, please pay particular attention to the following points:

1. If the above mentioned data controllers have ensured the principles that should be followed concerning the data quality according to Article 6 of Directive 95/46/EC,
2. If the processing of sensitive data complies with Article 7 of directive 95/46/EC and of point (f) in particular,
3. If the data controllers have taken the measures mentioned in Article 17 of Directive 95/46/EC and if the contracts or legal acts stipulated in this Article have been drawn up in writing in the case of each and every data controller and data processor.

After reminding you that
– a period of 6 months has elapsed since the opening of our case No. 048750_1118_05_10 without your having informed us or having taken any corrective action,
– the two requests we submitted to you (Reg.No. Γ / ΕΙΣ / 7783 / 28-12-2010) to which your answer is still pending,

We request that you inform us, as the main competent authority,

– Why, although Directive 95/46/EC was already in force, and in breach of Article 32, all school units were permitted to keep unchanged the existing ten-year-duration Pupils’ Registry and Progress Book, containing sensitive data? Why, in the year 2000, new such Books were issued and the data of all pupils who had not graduated were copied, without omitting the fields of sensitive data? Why, in the year 2010, although a new decade had begun and new Books had been issued, the Books of the preceding decade will remain in use until the last pupil registered there has graduated?

– Why do you not exercise the effective intervention authority granted to you by Directive 95/46/EC in the case of the failure of the State to comply with your Decision 77A/2002?

– Why, in spite of Decision 510/17/2000 of the HDPA, citizenship is still recorded in identity cards issued as late as 2008?

– Why isn’t the Electronic Record of Notifications and Permits available to the public on your web page?

– Why, in spite of the explicit prohibition, is there a derogation and processing of sensitive personal data providing information on the racial or national descent and on the religious or philosophical beliefs of citizens? Has this derogation been established by a legal provision or by a decision of the HDPA, and if so, which is it and has it been communicated to the Committee?

– Why has your Authority, with Permit No. 1271/21.6.2001 to the Defence Staff and Decision No. 87/20.8.2002 on Military Schools (two acts virtually contradicting each other) accepted the discrimination between the soldiers on compulsory military service and those who voluntarily enter military schools?

In conclusion, we consider it our obligation to inform you that following our participation to the public consultation on the revision of Directive 95/46/EC (attached), we intend to communicate all our actions and the relevant correspondence to the Working Party of Article 29, as well as all the co-competent bodies of the European Union, after the elapsing of 50 days from the submission of the present letter.

Sincerely,

For the Atheist Union Secretariat

Attached:
Letter containing our participation to the Public Consultation on the revision of Directive 95/46/EC (9 pages)[/spoiler]