- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Belgium · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
DPA case 95/2023 – Order (Belgium, 2023)
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 dancing school in Belgium refused to re-enroll a person because she didn't want to share her vaccination status. The Belgian data protection authority found that no personal data was actually processed since she didn't provide that information. This case highlights the importance of having a valid reason to ask for sensitive health information.
What happened
The dancing school asked a person to confirm her vaccination status against Covid-19 for re-enrollment.
Who was affected
The person who was denied re-enrollment due to her refusal to disclose her vaccination status.
What the authority found
The Belgian DPA ruled that there was no processing of personal data since the person did not share her vaccination status.
Why this matters
This case shows that companies should be careful when asking for sensitive information like vaccination status. It emphasizes the need for a valid legal basis before requesting such data.
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.
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 a dancing school which refused to re-enroll a person because she did not want to confirm whether or not she had been vaccinated against Covid-19. Considering that the controller did not have a legal basis to ask for her vaccination status, the person filed a complaint with the Belgian DPA.The controller denied ever having requested this information, it stated that it had only recommended members to vaccinate based on the French Interfederal Sports Association's recommendation. The Belgian DPA started by clarifying that since the complainant had not shared her vaccination status, no processing of personal data had taken place. Even though the complainant could not be considered as a data subject within the meaning of Article 4(1) GDPR, this lack of processing however, did not deprive her of her right and interest to submit a complaint with the DPA. The DPA stated that, considering that a vaccination status could qualify as sensitive health data under Article 9(1) GDPR, it is in principle forbidden to process. Article 9(2) sets out the exceptions to this principle, these conditions must be read in conjunction with the required legal basis as defined in Article 6. Unlike other cases in which the DPA has found one or other breach even in the absence of processing, in this case the DPA considered that there was not enough evidence that this information was actually requested. Consequently, the DPA dismissed the case.
Outcome
Order
A binding order requiring the controller to take specific action.
Related Enforcement Actions (0)
No other enforcement actions found for DPA case 95/2023 in BE
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 95/2023 - Belgium (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: