237 decisions in 4 hours: what the analysis by Majerník & Miháliková revealed
How Majerník & Miháliková used Praktik to analyze a full year of decisions by the Office for Personal Data Protection — and what they found.
decisions processed
total time
fines identified
average fine
The challenge
Majerník & Miháliková wanted to understand how the Office for Personal Data Protection of the Slovak Republic rules in cases of GDPR violations — specifically how it imposes fines, warnings, and decisions across different categories.
The dataset consisted of 237 decisions from 2025. Reading them individually would have required several days of manual work. The firm needed a way to process the entire dataset at once, identify patterns, and extract structured insights.
The approach
The firm uploaded all 237 decisions to Praktik and defined what it needed to determine: the type of decision, area of violation, amount of the fine, and type of entity.
Praktik extracted data from the documents in parallel and returned it in a structured table. No manual reading, copying, or building a table from scratch.
Total time: approximately four hours.
What they found
Decision structure
223 first-instance decisions, 12 decisions on administrative appeals, and 2 second-instance decisions.
The main pattern
182 of the 237 decisions — 77% — concerned insufficient anonymization of personal data in the Central Register of Contracts. This was a recurring, specific violation with relatively low average fines.
Fines by category
- Central Register of Contracts: average of approximately EUR 570
- Other GDPR violations: average of approximately EUR 3,900
- CCTV systems: mostly warnings, average fine of approximately EUR 1,240
Total fines
EUR 194,300 across all 237 decisions.
Who receives fines
218 legal entities — municipalities, public institutions, and companies. 19 natural persons.
Insight
The analysis revealed something that would have taken significantly longer to uncover using a document-by-document approach: the authority’s decision-making practice is heavily concentrated around one specific, recurring violation.
For a lawyer advising clients on GDPR compliance, this type of pattern is immediately applicable.
“Praktik allowed us to process an extensive dataset of decisions all at once and uncover patterns that would have taken us days to find manually.”
