- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Belgium · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
DPA case 147/2022 – 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 vacation park company required owners to provide photos and family details to use a discount card for the swimming pool. One owner complained, saying they should not have to provide that information. The data protection authority agreed that the company could not ask for unnecessary details and violated GDPR.
What happened
A vacation park company asked an apartment owner to provide photos and family relationships to use a discount card for pool access.
Who was affected
The apartment owner who wanted to use the discount card without providing additional personal details.
What the authority found
The data protection authority ruled that the company violated GDPR by requiring excessive personal information for pool access.
Why this matters
This case shows that businesses must only request necessary information from users. Companies should review their data collection practices to ensure compliance with GDPR.
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 controller was the owner of a ‘vacation park’. The data subject owned one of the apartments in this park. The controller provided a special membership card for the owners of an apartment which included a discount for access to the swimming pool. Family members, limited to a certain degree of kinship, were also allowed to use this card. Several details had to be provided to use the card, such as the name of the card owner, a photo of every user family member using it, and their degree of kinship to the owner. It became clear from the proceedings that fraudulent use of the card had occurred in the past by loaned it to unauthorized third parties to profit from the discount. The controller used two legal grounds for the processing: Article 6(1)(b) GDPR and Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, however, was only recently added as a legal ground. The data subject filed a complaint at the DPA, stating that he wanted to access the pool with a discount without providing the photos of the users of the card and their degree of kinship. The DPA held that the controller could rely on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR to regulate access to its swimming pool. The DPA stated that according to Article 13(1)(c) GDPR, the controller should mention the legal basis and the purpose of the processing to the data subject before it starts processing personal data. The controller had mentioned in the contract with the data subject that it would have the possibility to regulate access to the pool. Therefore, the controller could rely on Article 6(1)(b) GDPR. The DPA did however state that the controller could not rely on Article 6(1)(f) GDPR because this legal ground was added to the privacy policy after the processing had already started. Nevertheless, this finding did not affect the decision since the DPA held that one legal ground was enough for the controller to process personal data. The DPA did however determine that the controller violated Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, stating that personal d
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 147/2022 in BE
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 147/2022 - Belgium (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: