DPA case 79/2024 – Dismissed (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.
Belgium's data protection authority dismissed a complaint about a technician who asked for a landlord's contact information after causing damage. This is significant because it shows that not everyone can file complaints on behalf of others unless they have a direct interest. The ruling clarifies who can raise concerns about data misuse.
What happened
A tenant complained that a technician unlawfully processed the landlord's data when asking for contact information.
Who was affected
The landlord, whose contact information was requested by the technician, was affected.
What the authority found
The authority dismissed the complaint because the tenant did not demonstrate a sufficient interest to act on behalf of the landlord.
Why this matters
This case highlights the importance of having a direct interest in a complaint about data misuse. It reminds individuals that not everyone can file complaints for others without proper justification.
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
A technician provided a tenant with technical support in their apartment. While providing this technical support, a damage to the apartment occurred and the technician asked the tenant for the contact information of the apartment’s landlord to inform them about the damage. Eventually, the technician sent the landlord an invoice for the repair of the damage. The tenant lodged a compliant with the Belgian DPA (ADP/GBA) regarding unlawful processing of the landlord’s data by the technician. The DPA rejected to handle the compliant. The tenant, who initiated the proceedings, was not the data subject. Article 220 of [https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/wet/2018/07/30/2018040581/justel#LNK0009 Belgian data protection law] (Wet betreffende de bescherming van natuurlijke personen met betrekking tot de verwerking van persoonsgegevens) determined the scope of entities allowed to bring a complaint on behalf of data subject. However, by virtue of Article 58 of [https://etaamb.openjustice.be/nl/wet-van-03-december-2017_n2017031916.html Act establishing the Data Protection Authority] (Wet tot oprichting van de Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit), the DPA was entitled to complaints lodged by any natural person, not only the data subject, if such a person had a sufficient interest in doing so. Nevertheless, the tenant did not demonstrate the interest to act on behalf of landlord, who was a data subject. As a result, the compliant was inadmissible.
Outcome
Dismissed
The complaint or investigation was dismissed.
Related Enforcement Actions (0)
No other enforcement actions found for DPA case 79/2024 in BE
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 79/2024 - Belgium (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: