DPA case AWB- 21_3909 – €561 Fine (Netherlands, 2022)

An appeal by a data subject on a decision not to provide work notes with the files requested under Article 15 GDPR from a College was found unfounded because of the personal nature of said notes. A data subject made a request to obtain an inspected copy of the complete files on said data subject and her children from an officer of a college. The files were provided but the request was denied for work notes of the school attendance officer. The data subject lodged an objection to the College, which was declared unfounded by the officer. The data subject then filed an appeal against the decision. The Court upheld the appeal and annulled the decision of the Officer, leaving the decision to the College. In absence of a decision the data subject filed two letters of default and then appealed for failure to decide in a timely manner. The college then upheld the objection and awarded procedural cost, but still denied the request for inspection of the full files. In turn the Court declared the appeals inadmissible and unfounded but awarded the claimant the legal costs. The Court found that the College had properly denied the request of the data subject for access, holding that the work notes were not available and even if they were do not have to be made available due to their personal nature. In doing so it declared Article 15 (1) GDPR not applicable to the work notes. Furthermore, the appeal for the untimely decision of the College was declared inadmissible, because the College decided on the matter and on penalty payments after the complaint had been lodged and thus the subject lacked sufficient procedural interest in a substantive assessment.