The Polish data protection authority (UODO) sanctioned an association for its total lack of cooperation, emphasizing that non-compliance with the authority's investigative powers constitutes a separate and punishable offense, regardless of the merits of the initial case.

Facts and context

The Polish data protection authority (Urzad Ochrony Danych Osobowych, UODO) issued a sanction decision against the association Election Control Movement - Power Control Movement (RKW), including the imposition of a fine of 10,082 zł (approximately €2,300), for failing to cooperate with the supervisory authority.

The case originated from a report received by the UODO concerning possible irregularities in the processing of personal data during the 2025 presidential elections, via an unauthorized mobile application developed by the association and used by members of electoral commissions.

Reasons for the decision

• Obligation to cooperate with the supervisory authority (Article 58(1)(a) and (e) of the GDPR): The authority found that the association deliberately ignored several requests for information aimed at clarifying the operation of its application. Despite two official letters in June and July 2025, a telephone contact in October 2025, and the resending of requests, the association provided none of the required explanations. The UODO considered this refusal to cooperate as an intentional and persistent violation lasting more than ten months, which hindered its investigative mission and prevented it from examining the case objectively and thoroughly. This behavior was deemed serious as it undermines the very data protection mechanism that relies on the supervisory authority's ability to act.

Authority's decision

Consequently, the authority imposed a fine of 10,082 zł (approximately €2,300) on the Election Control Movement - Power Control Movement association.

Furthermore, the authority initiated enforcement proceedings for the recovery of the fine, the decision having become final.

Lessons learned

This decision reminds that:

• Failure to cooperate with a supervisory authority constitutes an autonomous offense, which can be financially sanctioned regardless of the outcome of the substantive investigation.
• Ignoring communications from a supervisory authority, even if the mail is not claimed, does not exempt an entity from its responsibility, as notifications are considered validly made in accordance with administrative procedure rules.
• Lack of cooperation is considered an aggravating circumstance when determining the amount of a fine; a passive attitude may justify a sanction even in the absence of precise financial data, the authority being able to estimate the entity's situation.