DPA case Decision 140-2022 – Complaint Upheld (Belgium, 2022)
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.
A person in Belgium asked to correct their contact information, but the company didn't respond properly. This matters because it highlights the importance of companies promptly addressing requests to fix personal data.
What happened
The data subject requested corrections to their and their daughter's contact information.
Who was affected
The person who made the request and their daughter were affected.
What the authority found
The authority ruled that the company must provide the requested corrections without delay.
Why this matters
This case emphasizes that companies need to take user requests seriously and act quickly. It shows that delays in addressing such requests can lead to complaints.
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 data subject requested the rectification of certain contact information about himself and his daughter (Article 16 GDPR). The daughter had problems which were not further specified. The controller had passed on information to another entity to follow up on these problems. A document (Motivatiedocument) was produced to pass on information from the controller to this other entity. However, the data subject claimed that certain contact-information in this document was incorrect, such as address details and e-mail of the data subject and address details of both the daughter (living with the data subject) and her mother. The data subject stated that he didn't receive letters or e-mails regarding his daughters progress because of the incorrect contact details. The data subject stated that the controller didn’t reply to his requests for rectification in a sufficient enough manner. The data subject made 5 requests in total. He made one request in person at 5 February 2020. He followed this up with three more requests in writing at 10 February 2020, 20 March 2020 and 6 April 2020. The last request was made by phone at 7 April 2020. The controller stated that it had answered the request in person already (5 February 2020). The data subject objected to this because the contact information was still incorrect accoriding to the data subject. At 7 April 2020, the data subject received a letter from the controller that one of the written requests of the data subject (6 April 2020) had been well received by the controller. At 24 November 2020, the data subject filed a complaint at the DPA. The DPA acknowledged that it had taken almost two years to make a decision, despite multiple requests of the data subject to receive more information about the circumstances of this case. The DPA stated that this was caused by the large workload of the DPA. The DPA held that the controller must provide the data subject without delay and, in any case, within at least within one m
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 Decision 140-2022 in BE
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case Decision 140-2022 - Belgium (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: