Decision in snooping case shakes former deputy mayor

It is met with great bewilderment by the former deputy mayor of Viborg Municipality, Mads Panny (Social Democrats), that two women were acquitted of abuse of office on Wednesday, after they three years ago improperly looked up numerous citizens' personal information.

He himself was one of those whose personal information was improperly snooped into.

"I am a bit puzzled that it is not a criminal offense to snoop into hundreds of people's personal information in that way," he says.

--------------------------------------

Abuse of office or misconduct in service?

--------------------------------------

*Abuse of office falls under Section 155 of the Danish Criminal Code.*

It states that if anyone acting in public service or office abuses their position to violate the rights of private individuals or the public, they are punished with a fine or imprisonment of up to 4 months. If done to obtain an unjustified advantage for themselves or others, imprisonment of up to 2 years may be imposed.

Source: Retsinformation.dk. ( https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2021/1851 )

*Misconduct in service falls under the Civil Servants Act.*

It states that a civil servant may be suspended or temporarily transferred to other work when they have incurred suspicion of a matter that deprives them of the trust required for holding the position, or which otherwise makes it problematic for them to continue performing their current work.

Source: Retsinformation.dk. ( https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2017/511 )

But the Supreme Court reached a decision on Wednesday that it was a matter of less serious misconduct in service, which is not covered by the provision on abuse of office.

Therefore, the two accused women in the case were acquitted.

Read also: Supreme Court acquits women for snooping in data system ( https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/hoejesteret-frifinder-kvinder-snagen-i-datasystem )

--------------------------

Wrong, but not illegal

--------------------------

While one of the women made 241 unauthorized searches in the municipality's data system, the other was behind 80 searches.

>

> In some way, this is apparently not really illegal.

>

Among other things, they looked into information about celebrities, colleagues, and acquaintances. For example, they checked their personal identification numbers, names, addresses, ages, and marital status.

Both have admitted to the matter and have justified the searches with curiosity.

Both women have also been dismissed. But the fact that the case has no criminal consequences puzzles Mads Panny.

"In some way, this is apparently not really illegal. But on the other hand, it is still wrong enough that they have been fired," the politician says with bewilderment.

---------------

A different outcome

---------------

Even though the two women together were behind more than 300 unauthorized searches, there are also several mitigating circumstances.

And it is particularly for this reason that the verdict turned out as it did, assesses Sten Bønsing, a professor of administrative law at Aalborg University.

"What the Supreme Court emphasizes is that, even though there are relatively many searches, the information has not been disclosed or misused. Additionally, it involves relatively trivial information such as names, addresses, CPR numbers, and the like."

"Therefore, the Supreme Court assesses that nothing serious has occurred, aside from the searches themselves, of course," says Sten Bønsing.

----------

The case in brief

----------

The Supreme Court on Wednesday acquitted two women who, while employed by Viborg Municipality, snooped into citizens' information.

The case dates back to 2023, when the two women, then employed by Viborg Municipality, were discovered during a spot check.

One made 241 unauthorized searches in the municipality's data system – while the other made 80 searches.

Among other things, they looked at information about celebrities, colleagues, and acquaintances – such as their marital status and other members of the household.

The two women have admitted to making the searches in question – and have justified the searches with curiosity.

But the Supreme Court has ruled that it was not serious enough to constitute a violation of the Criminal Code's provision on abuse of office.

However, if the prosecution had brought the case based on data protection rules, the GDPR, rather than abuse of office, the outcome might have been different, the professor assesses.

Because those rules state, among other things, that personal data "must be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes" and must not be "further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes."

"The Supreme Court implies that no case was brought based on data protection rules – i.e., the GDPR. This could be a signal that if the prosecution had also brought the case under the GDPR rules, it could have had a different outcome," says Sten Bønsing.

----------------------

No plans for a new case

----------------------

It was originally Viborg Municipality's police report against the employees that set the case in motion back in 2023.

>

> Now it has been through the Supreme Court. So I don't think we can take it any further.

>

However, there is no interest in reopening the case.

"We have put the case behind us," says Klaus Christiansen, the municipality's director of employment, finance, and personnel.

Nor does former deputy mayor Mads Panny have any immediate plans to take up the case again.

"Now it has been through the Supreme Court. So I don't think we can take it any further," he says.

Warning: This article was translated by a Large Language Model, in case of doubt, you can always visit the original source.