Court case 200.361.079/01 – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2026)
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.
The data subject submitted an access request, in electronic format, of his gambling data to Risepoint Limited (the controller), the operator of online gambling services in the Netherlands, pursuant to Article 15 GDPR. This was to allow the data subject to check its accuracy, whether processing was lawful and determine the amounts which were deposited and withdrawn from the service. The controller was willing to provide some data, however refused to provide transaction data, relying on Maltese data protection law. The data subject brought the issue to court. The Rotterdam District Court ordered the controller, to provide the data subject with his personal gambling data. The controller appealed on the grounds that the actual intentions behind the data subjects request were so that he could potentially bring a claim against the controller, and that the request was excessive under Article 12(5) GDPR. Furthermore, relying on Maltese data protection law which allows restriction of access in circumstances involving legal proceedings. The controller argued that disclosing the transaction data could affect potential litigation. Finally, the controller claimed that the requested electronic format requested by the data subject was not justified by Article 20 GDPR. The data subject on the other hand, argued that Article 15 GDPR should entitle him to access his gambling and transaction records as they constituted personal data. The data subject emphasised that a potential legal claim did not invalidate his rights under the GDPR, particularly, right to access. Moreover, the data subject addressed the controller’s reliance on Maltese law, however stated that such must still comply with Article 23 GDPR and satisfy the proportionality and necessity requirements. Finally, the data subject argued that the format requested would allow him to assess the accuracy of his records effectively. Primarily, the court rejected the controller’s argument that the data subject only made the acce
Source checks
Source retrieval not recorded.
No automated check recorded.
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 data subject submitted an access request, in electronic format, of his gambling data to Risepoint Limited (the controller), the operator of online gambling services in the Netherlands, pursuant to Article 15 GDPR. This was to allow the data subject to check its accuracy, whether processing was lawful and determine the amounts which were deposited and withdrawn from the service. The controller was willing to provide some data, however refused to provide transaction data, relying on Maltese data protection law. The data subject brought the issue to court. The Rotterdam District Court ordered the controller, to provide the data subject with his personal gambling data. The controller appealed on the grounds that the actual intentions behind the data subjects request were so that he could potentially bring a claim against the controller, and that the request was excessive under Article 12(5) GDPR. Furthermore, relying on Maltese data protection law which allows restriction of access in circumstances involving legal proceedings. The controller argued that disclosing the transaction data could affect potential litigation. Finally, the controller claimed that the requested electronic format requested by the data subject was not justified by Article 20 GDPR. The data subject on the other hand, argued that Article 15 GDPR should entitle him to access his gambling and transaction records as they constituted personal data. The data subject emphasised that a potential legal claim did not invalidate his rights under the GDPR, particularly, right to access. Moreover, the data subject addressed the controller’s reliance on Maltese law, however stated that such must still comply with Article 23 GDPR and satisfy the proportionality and necessity requirements. Finally, the data subject argued that the format requested would allow him to assess the accuracy of his records effectively. Primarily, the court rejected the controller’s argument that the data subject only made the acce
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 200.361.079/01 in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 200.361.079/01 - Netherlands (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: