DPA case 67/2024 – Complaint Upheld (Belgium, 2024)
General GDPR enforcement action
This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
A municipality in Belgium refused a marriage application because of a person's past criminal record, which the individual felt was irrelevant. The court found that the municipality should not have included this outdated information in their decision, highlighting the importance of protecting personal data.
What happened
The municipality used a person's old criminal record to justify refusing a marriage application.
Who was affected
The individual whose marriage application was denied due to their past criminal record.
What the authority found
The authority determined that the municipality improperly included irrelevant personal data in their decision-making process.
Why this matters
This case emphasizes that organizations must carefully consider the relevance of personal data they use in decisions. It serves as a reminder for municipalities and other entities to respect privacy rights.
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.
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
Two of the data subject's friends wanted to get married. However, this marriage was refused by the municipality as it was considered a marriage of convenience. In the refusal decision, the municipality mentioned the data subject and their criminal records. Indeed, the municipality based its decision on the opinion of the public prosecutor’s office which showed that the refusal was justified, and mentioned the data subject’s criminal records. The data subject considered that the facts dated back more than 25 years and it were completely irrelevant to the marriage refusal decision. Therefore, they made an access request and an erasure request with the municipality. The municipality’s DPO responded that they were not the controller, and that they were merely carrying out a mandate imposed by the federal government. Indeed, the data came from the national database of the judicial authorities, as the public prosecutor’s report is available for inspection by those concerned at the court and the town hall. This document served as the justification for the municipality’s ruling. The data subject’s lawyer responded to this answer and stressed that the municipality is indeed a controller. He indicated that the person who is responsible for investigating the legality of a marriage and who determines what data is collected for this purpose is the controller. In addition, they argued that although the public prosecutor’s opinion included criminal data, the municipality does not have to copy this opinion identically, especially since the data subject’s history was irrelevant and the couple was not even aware of his history at the time. The DPO of the municipality responded that the prosecutor decided to include the data subject’s judicial past in their opinion, and that they could not answer the question regarding the prosecutor’s motives and legal basis for explicitly mentioning the data subject. The DPO also indicated that after a meeting that took place on the matter of marri
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 67/2024 in BE
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 67/2024 - Belgium (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: