Enforcing jurisdiction
Belgium · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation

DPA case 147/2022 – Complaint Upheld (Belgium, 2022)

Complaint Upheld
Autorité de Protection des Données17 October 2022Belgium
final
Complaint Upheld

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.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 2(1) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(b) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(b) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 13(1)(c) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 2(1) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(b) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(b) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 13(1)(c) GDPR

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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

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

Decision Date

17 October 2022

Authority

Autorité de Protection des Données

GDPRhub ID

gdprhub-5356

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Automatically normalized and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 147/2022 - Belgium (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: