The Supreme Court considers it acceptable for a board member of the company name with the publication of information on the company's debt recovery (pressurizing the debtor) on the following conditions:

Debt due in compelling them to disclose the legal person is allowed to emerge from the debt with the register of members of the Board information. However, the debt payable compelling them not to disclose the legal person with the debt of the former board members names, because they have no opportunity to influence the economic activity of the debtor.

Executive Board member's name will not be disclosed in connection with debt even, the time when the public has to know, that this person really does not affect the economic activity of the debtor. During the public is not valid members of the board of the commitment to introduce ourselves and explore, who can really affect whether or. But when the time of the public is notified of such fact, it must be disclosed to take into account. It must also be disclosed in the information to be true and not mislead. In other words, not to divulge information to create the impression, that is a member of the Board of debts.

The purpose of debt the debtor has the right to publish, and the members of the board in accordance with the values. It is permissible to indicate the legal entity of debt with related parties in a negative context, which can also be regarded as a public shame, whilst respected the limits of decency and is not contrary to good morals gone. The mere fact, the company is indebted to someone else, by itself it does not follow, the company's board members have been incompetent or malicious. The mere purpose of damaging the reputation is not acceptable. If the disclosure of the main goal is to harm someone's reputation, non-availability of debt, then such action may be contrary to good morals.

The relevant Supreme Court rulings: 3-2-1-67-10 (21.12.2010) and 3-2-1-80-13 (25.09.2013)

Source: The Data Protection Inspectorate (payment defaults)