Over 51% of the published court decisions do not comply with the anonymization rules, according to a study conducted by the Legal Resources Center from Moldova (LRCM). The analysis, which evaluated more than 1,300 decisions, shows that almost every second court judgement is published with deviations, thus exposing citizens' personal data, IPN reports.
Most of the deviations were registered in courts, where 55% of the analyzed decisions do not comply with the provisions on data protection. In the case of the courts of appeals, the non-compliance rate is 46%, while of the Supreme Court of Justice - 18%. Among the most common errors are the lack of depersonalization of personal information, incomplete anonymization and violation of the rules on the protection of sensitive data.
"The most serious violations are the omission of anonymization of data, such as addresses, dates of birth or details regarding minors involved in lawsuits. In many cases, the data is hidden in one part of the document, but remains visible in other sections. These errors endanger the privacy and safety of the people involved," note the authors of the study.
The most frequent violation of the Superior Council of Magistracy’s regulations refers to the provisions that oblige the concealment, ex officio, of personal data. The study identified such irregularities in 92% of the cases (516 out of 558 judgments with violations). Incomplete anonymization, where data is protected in particular sections, but remains visible in others, is a common example.
Partial depersonalization, where data is anonymized in some parts of judgments, is the second most common problem. This was identified in 28% of the cases (159 judgments). This type of error leaves sensitive information exposed, compromising the privacy of the parties involved.
The provisions prohibiting the anonymization of the names of justice professionals, such as judges, prosecutors or lawyers, were violated in 20% of the decisions (113 cases). There have also been cases of abusive depersonalization of the names of legal entities involved in lawsuits.
In cases classed as "Crimes against the family and minors," the violations are even more pronounced. Of the 200 decisions analyzed, 67% (134 cases) did not comply with the rigors of anonymization. Most deviations were identified at the level of common law courts (74%), followed by courts of appeals (40%) and the Supreme Court of Justice (70%). The problems include the omission of anonymizing data, such as domicile or date of birth.
The authors of the LRCM study note that all the shortcomings highlight a major problem in the justice system, which affects both the right to privacy of citizens and the public's trust in the transparency of the act of justice.
The authors of the study recommend a series of measures to improve the situation, including the organization of regular training courses for judges, clerks and other justice professionals, as well as the improvement of digital systems used in the drafting and publication of judgments. It is also proposed to update the Superior Council of Magistracy’s regulations so as to clarify the rules of anonymization and reduce the space for interpretation.
