- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Netherlands · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
ING Bank N.V. – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2019)
Privacy enforcement record
This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
A Dutch court ruled that ING Bank N.V. did not respond to a customer's request to remove their data from a credit registration. This matters because it highlights the importance of banks responding to customer data requests. The court stated that the customer should submit a new request under GDPR rules.
What happened
ING Bank N.V. failed to respond to a customer's request to remove their data from the BKR registration.
Who was affected
The customer who requested the removal of their data from the BKR registration was affected.
What the authority found
The court decided that the customer's request was not urgent enough for interim measures, and they should submit a new request instead.
Why this matters
This ruling emphasizes that customers can make data removal requests multiple times. Companies should ensure they have clear processes to handle such requests.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 20 March 2026.
Processing notes: national law identified.
Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources
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 (5)
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: