HOIST FINANCE AB – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2021)

This case concerns an interlocutory judgment in the case [https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2021:174&showbutton=true&keyword=C%2f13%2f694440%2fKG C/13/694440/KG ZA-20-1118 MvW/JE dated 21 January 2021], in which the interim relief judge of the District Court of Amsterdam referred questions to the Dutch Supreme Court for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Section 392 RV. Controller is Hoist Finance. The data subject had taken out a loan with the controller. The controller claimed this credit after payment arrears had occurred. Because payment arrears had occurred, the data subject was registered in the Central Credit Information System (CKI) of the Credit Registration Office (BKR) with a special code "A". This special code was then adjusted in the following months do display that the claim had been claimed, and that the amount exceeded a certain threshold. After the debt had been settled, and the processor notified the controller of this, the controller ensured the data subject that it would have the entry removed from the BKR registration, which indicated that the amount of the claim exceeded a certain threshold. Because the controller did not comply with the request, the data subject submitted another request, which was rejected by the controller. The District Court of Amsterdam referred the following preliminary questions were put to the Supreme Court: 1.     Must the processing of specific personal data by a credit institution, by means of an individual registration in the system of BKR, be assessed in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(1)(c), Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, or both provisions? 2.     Does the answer to Question 1 mean: a)      that the person whose personal data have been recorded is not entitled to invoke the right to erasure provided for in Article 17 GDPR? b)      that person is not entitled to a right of objection as referred to in Article 21 GDPR? 3.      If the answer to Question 2b means that, in the case