- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Belgium · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
DPA case 160/2022 – 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.
Belgium's data protection authority upheld a complaint from a person who received unwanted calls and requested his data be erased. This decision is important because it reinforces the right to access and delete personal data. Companies must respond to such requests to avoid penalties.
What happened
A person asked a company to provide his data and to delete it after receiving unwanted calls.
Who was affected
The individual who received multiple calls from the company and requested his data be erased.
What the authority found
The DPA found that the company failed to respond to the individual's access and erasure requests, violating GDPR.
Why this matters
This ruling stresses the importance of responding to data requests promptly. Companies must have processes in place to handle access and deletion requests effectively.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 18 October 2026.
Processing notes: articles corrected, 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
The data subject received different calls by the controller, which used different phone numbers. These were national, foreign and anonymous numbers. The nature of the controller and the nature of these calls were not specified in the decision. The data subject asked the controller for a copy of his data (Article 15 GDPR) and asked the controller multiple times to remove his data (Article 17 GDPR). The data subject submitted the erasure requests by e-mail and using the controller’s website. However, the controller never replied. The DPA held that the data subject properly submitted his access - and erasure requests (Articles 15 and 17 GDPR). The DPA held that the controller breached Articles 12(3) GDPR, Article 15(1) GDPR and Article 17(1) GDPR by not responding to any request made by the data subject. The DPA ordered the controller to fulfil the data subject requests within 30 days. This order was based on Article 95, § 1, 5° WOG (law establishing the Belgian DPA) and Article 58(2)(c) GDPR. This order was not a final decision in light of article 100 WOG but a decision in a procedure prior to the decision on the merits.
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 160/2022 in BE
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 160/2022 - Belgium (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: