- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Belgium · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
DPA case 55/2021 – Complaint Upheld (Belgium, 2021)
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.
The Belgian data authority reprimanded a public administration for not providing enough information about how they processed personal data related to child care. They found that the administration lacked a proper legal basis for their actions but chose not to suspend their work. This case highlights the need for transparency in handling sensitive data.
What happened
A public administration was reprimanded for failing to inform about personal data processing in child care.
Who was affected
Children and their guardians whose data was processed by the administration.
What the authority found
The Belgian data authority found violations related to the lack of information and legal basis for processing personal data.
Why this matters
This case underscores the necessity for public entities to be transparent and compliant with data protection laws, especially when handling sensitive information about children.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Secondary-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 18 October 2026.
No issues were reported by that automated check.
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 Belgian DPA issued a reprimand against a public administration in charge of child care for the violation of article 13(1) GDPR (lack of information on the processing) and 25 GDPR (lack of technical, organisational measures). The DPA also concluded to the lack of appropriate legal basis to continue the processing of personal data under the new legislation in place (article 6(1)(e) and 6(3)), but decided to not suspend the processing at stake in order to let the administration perform its tasks relating to child care. The DPA will instead contact the legislator to further clarify the legal basis on which the administration relies. - Can a father alone (without the mother, being the other guardian) submit an request for erasure to the controller on behalf of a minor ? - How precise should the applicable legislation be on which the administration relies to process the data on the basis of Article 6.1.e GDPR ? - Did the administration sharing confidential data with a third party violates article 25 GDPR ? - Should the administration have informed the data subjects on the aspects of the processing which was based on Article 6.1.e ? - The lack of foreseeability of the law upon which the processing takes place under Article 6(1)(e) GDPR amounts to a violation of Article 6(1)(e) and 6(1) GDPR - The lack of information on the identity of the controller and the DPO amounts to a violation of Article 13(1)(a) and (b) GDPR - The communication of personal data about the child to the mother without reminding that the data should be kept confidential and should not be used in another procedure is a violation of Article 25 GDPR (lack of organisational measures) - The request to delete the data about the child cannot be lodged by the father only, considering that he is not the sole guardian of the child and other elements in this specific case - Since the access request was not sent to the appropriate organ of the administration, the Belgian DPA did not consider that th
Outcome
Complaint Upheld
A data subject complaint that was upheld by the DPA.
Related Enforcement Actions (0)
No other enforcement actions found for DPA case 55/2021 in BE
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 55/2021 - Belgium (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: