Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (Belgian Institute of Estate Agents) – CJEU Judgment (Belgium, 2013)
CJEU precedent (Directive 95/46/EC, pre-GDPR)
This is a Court of Justice judgment predating the GDPR. It interprets Directive 95/46/EC (the Data Protection Directive). It is not a cookie or ePrivacy case and is excluded from cookie statistics and the Risk Calculator.
The Belgian Institute of Estate Agents used private detectives to gather information on a real estate company, raising questions about privacy. This case is significant because it examines the rules around collecting personal data without consent.
What happened
IPI collected personal data through private detectives without informing the agents involved.
Who was affected
Real estate agents whose personal data was collected by private detectives.
What the authority found
The Court ruled that the use of private detectives must comply with data protection rules, including informing individuals about data processing.
Why this matters
This case emphasizes the importance of transparency in data collection practices. Companies should ensure they inform individuals when their data is being processed, even in investigations.
The Belgian Professional Institute of Real Estate Agents (IPI) had used private detectives to collect information on a real estate company that allegedly breached regulatory rules. The admissibility of the private detectives’ evidence in court was questioned on the grounds that the company’s agents had not been informed that their personal data would be processed by third parties in accordance with [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:en:HTML Article 11(1) of the Data Protection Directive 95/46]. IPI argued that the use of private detectives fell within the exception under [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:en:HTML Article 13(1)(d) of Directive 95/46], which permits the collection of data without consent for the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of breaches for regulated professions. Belgian law had specified exceptions for journalistic purposes, artistic or literary expression, public authorities exercising judicial police duties, police services and the European Centre for Missing and Sexually Abused Children. The Belgian Constitutional Court considered that the Belgian law did not strictly transpose exceptions comparable to [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:en:HTML Article 13 of Directive 95/46/EC]. It referred three questions to the ECJ for clarification on the obligations for Member States to implement Article 13 in national law: # Does [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:en:HTML Article 13(1)(d) of Directive 95/46] leave Member States free to choose whether or not to provide for an exception to the immediate obligation to inform under Article 11(1) to protect others’ rights and freedoms? # Do professional activities of private detectives (governed by national law) come within an exception referred to in [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995L0046:en:HTML Articl
Outcome
CJEU Judgment
A judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union, typically on a preliminary reference from a national court.
Violations (1)
Non-essential cookies (tracking, advertising) are placed on the user's device before obtaining valid consent.
Art. 6(1) GDPR
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (Belgian Institute of Estate Agents) in BE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Similar Cases
Enforcement actions with similar violations
Details
Judgment Date
7 November 2013
Authority
Court of Justice of the European Union
GDPRhub ID
gdprhub-cjeu-8047About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (Belgian Institute of Estate Agents) - Belgium (2013). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: