The Direct Democracy party is taking legal action regarding the administrative fine of €6,000 imposed on the party’s leader by the Commissioner for the Protection of Personal Data, Maria Christofidou, for a violation related to the suspension of the “Agora” app.
In a post, the party states that “regarding the €6,000 fine for the Agora platform, we want to clarify that this is not a new incident. The case has been under review since February 2026. This specific decision does not find a personal data breach, but rather a violation of the obligation to cooperate with the Data Protection Authority, as stated in the Commissioner’s official announcement.”
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
As Direct Democracy adds, “We disagree with the decision and have already contacted our attorney, Mr. Giannos Georgiadis. We will proceed with the legal remedies available to us, by filing an appeal with the Administrative Court and requesting that the decision be overturned.”
It should be noted that the party will not make any further comments until its lawyer issues an official statement.
READ ALSO: €6,000 Fine Imposed on Fidias for the Agora App: What Commissioner Christofidou Found Regarding Personal Data
Regarding the €6,000 fine for the Agora platform, we would like to clarify that this is not a new incident. The case has been under review since February 2026.
This specific decision does not find a personal data breach, but rather a violation of the obligation… pic.twitter.com/6msXfdj4Tc
Advertisement— Direct Democracy Cyprus (@AmesiDemocraCY) September 23, 2026
The Commissioner’s Decision
The Commissioner for the Protection of Personal Data, Maria Christofidou, in connection with the operation of the “Agora” app/online platform, noting that this is deemed “reasonable and proportionate.”
The “Agora” online platform operates under the responsibility of MEP and President of Direct Democracy, Fidias Panagiotou, who, according to the Commissioner, is listed as the “Data Controller.”
The decision was made public on Tuesday, and in it the Commissioner states that the actions and omissions of Mr. Panagiotou in failing to fully comply with the Authority’s request for a temporary suspension of all platform operations, during which the collection and processing of personal data took place, as well as his conduct toward the Authority “constitutes a violation of the provisions of Article 31 of the Regulation and of its independent obligation to cooperate with the Authority upon its request, in order for the Authority to perform its duties under the provisions of Article 57(1)(a) of the Regulation to monitor and enforce compliance with this Regulation,” while noting that these actions and/or omissions impeded and/or obstructed the thorough examination of the case in the exercise of its supervisory duties.
As aggravating factors, the Commissioner cites Mr. Panagiotou’s lack of cooperation, in response to the supervisory authority’s explicit and repeated requests to investigate the processing of personal data through the Agora application and/or online platform.
Furthermore, it notes that, despite the Authority’s successive requests and the specific clarifications provided regarding the scope of the request for a temporary suspension of the platform’s operation, Mr. Panagiotou’s compliance was, as stated, “fragmentary, incomplete, and failed to address the Authority’s request in its entirety.”
Another aggravating factor is the degree of responsibility borne by Mr. Panagiotou, who, as the Data Controller, was obligated to respond fully, clearly, in a timely and substantive manner to the Authority’s requests and provide accurate, complete, and consistent information to enable the Authority to effectively carry out its supervisory duties.
The Commissioner also refers to a limited degree of cooperation, noting that Mr. Panagiotou did not comply with the explicit request to temporarily suspend the platform’s operations and did not provide, from the outset, complete and clear feedback regarding the compliance actionshe had taken.
It should also be noted that the information and assurances submitted—which, in light of the Authority’s subsequent findings, did not fully and accurately reflect the platform’s actual operating status— a fact that hindered and/or impeded the Authority’s thorough assessment of the case.
Reference is also made to the fact that, during the Authority’s audit, certain functions of the platform that involved the collection and/or processing of personal data remained active, despite the Authority’s clear request to temporarily suspend the operation of the platform in its entirety.
Finally, as noted, Mr. Panagiotou’s public statements regarding the continued operation of the application and/or the online platform, which are assessed as evidence reinforcing the lack of a genuine willingness to comply with and cooperate with the Authority.
