- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Belgium · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
DPA case 141/2022 – Dismissed (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 man complained that a newspaper published a photo of his house in an article about a party that didn't happen there. The authority decided not to take further action, which raises questions about privacy and media reporting.
What happened
The data subject requested the removal of a photo of his house from a newspaper article.
Who was affected
The man whose house was pictured in the article was affected.
What the authority found
The authority dismissed the complaint, stating it was not expedient to investigate further.
Why this matters
This case shows the challenges individuals face when trying to protect their privacy against media publications. It raises awareness about the balance between privacy and freedom of the press.
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: national law identified.
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
A picture of the data subject's house was used in a news article about a 'lock-down' party. This article was posted on the website of a newspaper (controller). The data subject first contacted the newspaper and requested the removal or correction of the article. According to the data subject, it contained several mistakes, such as the fact that the lock-down party had not taken place in this house. He also stated that the publication of the photo was in essence the same as the publication of his address. As a result, he was discredited by the local community and received hateful messages on social media. The data subject also contacted the controller's DPO, requesting it to either delete the published information or to correct it. The data subject specifically requested the deletion of the photo of his house, as he felt that it was disproportionate and not necessary for the article. The controller responded that after looking into the matter with the journalist, it confirmed that the information was in the article was in fact accurate. The DPA dismissed the complaint for reasons of expediency pursuant to Article 95(1)(3) LCA (Act establishing the data protection authority)[https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/publications/organieke-wet-van-de-gba.pdf la Loi du 3 décembre 2017 portant création de l'Autorité de protection des données (LCA)]. Despite the presence of elements that could lead to a sanction, the DPA did not deem further investigation of the case appropriate in the light of the priorities as illustrated in its Discontinuance Policy[https://www.autoriteprotectiondonnees.be/publications/politique-de-classement-sans-suite-de-la-chambre-contentieuse.pdf Politique de classement sans suite de la Chambre Contentieuse, 18/06/2021].. The DPA stated it would balance the personal impact for the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject against the effectiveness of action taken by the DPA, in order to decide if it was expedient to continue the p
Outcome
Dismissed
The complaint or investigation was dismissed.
Related Enforcement Actions (0)
No other enforcement actions found for DPA case 141/2022 in BE
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 141/2022 - Belgium (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: