ING Bank N.V. – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2019)
General GDPR enforcement action
This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
A court in Amsterdam ruled on a case involving ING Bank N.V. where a customer asked to have his data removed from a credit registry. The court decided that the customer didn't prove an urgent need for immediate action, so his request was rejected. This case highlights the importance of clearly demonstrating urgency when making data removal requests.
What happened
The court ruled that the customer's request to remove data from a credit registry was inadmissible due to lack of urgency.
Who was affected
The customer who requested data removal from the BKR credit registry was affected.
What the authority found
The court stated that a request under Article 21 GDPR can be made multiple times, but the applicant did not show an urgent need for interim measures.
Why this matters
This ruling emphasizes that users can make repeated data requests, but they must clearly demonstrate urgency. Companies should ensure they understand how to handle such requests effectively.
GDPR Articles Cited
View original scraped data
Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.
The complainant asked his bank (ING Bank N.V.) to remove his data from the BKR registration (office for credit) under Article 21 GDPR. The bank did not answer to the request. The data subject brought a complaint before the Court of First Instance. The Court of First Instance found the complaint inadmissible and the complainant appealed the decision. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal considered that a request under Article 21 GDPR can be made at any time and several times. It also found that a provisional measure can be granted under Article 21 GDPR if an urgent action is needed. However, in the present case, the Court stated that the applicant did not prove the urgent interest for the interim measures. Thus, the measures could not be granted and the dedicated claim was rejected as inadmissible. The Court found that the applicant should have submitted a new request under Article 21 GDPR.
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (6)
Other cases involving ING Bank N.V. in NL
Court Ruling
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. ING Bank N.V. - Netherlands (2019). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: