Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2020)

Court Ruling
DPA RbMidden-Nederland15 October 2020Netherlands
final
Court Ruling

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 ruled against a complainant who felt the Dutch data authority took too long to handle his complaint about a data broker. This case is significant because it clarifies the timeline for how quickly data authorities must respond to complaints. It shows that investigations can take time, especially when multiple parties are involved.

What happened

The court decided that the Dutch data authority did not violate any timelines in handling the complainant's case.

Who was affected

The individual who filed a complaint against a data broker for unlawful data processing.

What the authority found

The court found that the data authority was following the correct procedures and timelines as outlined in the law.

Why this matters

This ruling sets a precedent for how long data authorities can take to resolve complaints. It highlights the complexities involved in data investigations, which can impact how quickly users receive responses.

GDPR Articles Cited

AI-verified

View original scraped data
Art. 77(GDPR)
Art. 78(2) GDPR

Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.

Decision AuthorityRb. Midden-Nederland
Source verified 19 March 2026
articles corrected
national law identified
authority corrected
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

On 21 of January 2019 complainant lodged a complaint with Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens against a data broker called Focum. In his view, Focum processed his data unlawfully and wrongly rejected his erasure request. On 21 of February 2020 complainant started a court case against Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens for not deciding on his complaint on time and demanding compensation. Complainant believes that AP is obliged to issue a decision within a reasonable timeline, which is 8 weeks according to the Dutch Administrative law. Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens disagrees: Article 78(2) GDPR defines the applicable time frame in line with Article 4:13(1) of the Dutch Administrative law. AP must inform complainant of the progress or settlement of the complaint within 3 months. The Court ruled against complainant’s arguments for the following reasons: 1) Article 78(2) GDPR defines the applicable time frame in line with Article 4:13(1) of the Dutch Administrative law. The reason for not putting a deadline in the law is because complaints can lead to long and complex investigations and include cross-border data processing, meaning that other supervisory authorities might need to get involved. 2) According to Recital 141 GDPR, AP must update complainant within a reasonable period. In this case, AP sent an email to complainant on 20 march 2019, which counts as a progress report even if it doesn’t explicitly say so in the email itself. Moreover, the email stated that the investigation involved cross-border processing and that the complaint may be handled together with other European supervisory authorities. 3) When assessing whether the decision on the complaint took too long, the Court took the following into account: - AP was conducting their investigation based on several different complaints from different people. - The investigation included an on-site inspection and coordination with other supervisory authorities in the EU. - COVID-19 measures that have slowed the AP down.

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Related Cases (10)

Other cases involving Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens in NL

Current
Oct 2020

Court Ruling

Details

Ruling Date

15 October 2020

Authority

DPA RbMidden-Nederland

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
AI-verified and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens - Netherlands (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: