- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Belgium · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
DPA case 115/2022 – Complaint Upheld (Belgium, 2022)
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.
A Belgian company faced a complaint for sharing an employee's health information without permission during a meeting. This is important because it highlights the need for companies to keep sensitive information private.
What happened
The company disclosed an employee's health status during a meeting without her presence or consent.
Who was affected
The employee whose health information was shared was directly affected.
What the authority found
The Belgian DPA noted that the company did not have a proper legal basis for sharing the sensitive health data.
Why this matters
This case emphasizes the importance of confidentiality in the workplace, especially regarding sensitive information. Companies must ensure that they handle personal data properly to avoid legal issues.
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.
Processing notes: articles corrected.
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
During a meeting where the data subject was not present, the data subject's manager (controller) announced her departure and read out a document issued by the company doctor, stating that she was unfit to work and would leave the company. This statement was also included in the minutes of that meeting. When the data subject discovered this, she filed a complaint against the controller with the Belgian DPA for unlawfully disclosing health related personal data to third parties. She added that the minutes were then saved on the controller´s server, freely accessible to all its staff, including from other departments. The DPA noted that the data subject did not dispute the lawfulness of processing of the information that she was unfit to work, but the subsequent communication about her health to her colleagues and other staff members. The DPA noted that it was not able to verify whether the minutes were actually made available on the controller's server. However if that were the case, this would amount to an additional processing activity and the following findings of the infringement also apply. The DPA first assessed whether the further processing was compatible with the purpose of the original processing (Article 5(1)(b) GDPR). It found that the purpose of the original processing was personnel management. The DPA held that the data subject could not reasonably expect that the same data would be communicated widely beyond the persons authorised for personnel management. Especially considering the sensitive nature of the data. Therefore the DPA held that the further processing was incompatible with the purpose of the original processing. As the further processing was incompatible with the purpose of the original processing, the DPA noted that it could only be lawful if it had its own legal basis pursuant to Article 9(2) juncto Article 6(1). However the DPA found that this was also not present. Therefore, the DPA held that the controller did not have a proper legal
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 115/2022 in BE
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 115/2022 - Belgium (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: