DPA case DOS-2024-01344 – Complaint Upheld (Belgium, 2025)

Complaint Upheld
Autorité de Protection des Données7 January 2025Belgium
final
Complaint Upheld

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.

On January 19, 2023, the controller’s security officer requested the Belgian National Security Authority (NSA) to extend the security clearance of one of their employees (the data subject), which was rejected by means of a reasoned decision on July 7, 2023 and communicated back to the controller’s security officer. The data subject and the governing body of the controller received the reasoned decision, which was then forwarded to the data subject’s hierarchical superior by the governing body of the controller. This triggered disciplinary investigations of the data subject in connection to allegations of indecent assault on a minor. On March 5, 2024, the data subject filed a complaint with the Belgian Data Protection Authority (APD/GBA) concerning the unlawful processing of their personal data by their employer, the controller. On March 27, 2024, the DPA declared the complaint admissible, leading to the DPA delivering a decision on the substance of the case. The Contentious Chamber found multiple GDPR violations by the controller. Article 5(1)(a) GDPR was breached by processing the NSA's reasoned decision without a valid legal basis, Article 5(1)(b) GDPR by sharing it with unauthorised parties contrary to its originally intended purpose, and Article 5(1)(f) GDPR by failing to ensure confidentiality of the personal data. Since the processing of personal data related to criminal offences, the controller additionally violated Article 10 GDPR. The lack of necessity for processing under both a legal obligation to which the controller is subject and public interest grounds breached Articles 6(1)(c) and 6(1)(e) GDPR. Furthermore, the controller violated Articles 12(1), (3), and (4) GDPR by failing to inform the data subject, delaying access requests, and improperly invoking judicial secrecy, along with Article 15 GDPR for denying a legitimate access request by the data subject. Finally, breaches of Articles 24(1), 25(1), and 32 GDPR were found due to the controlle

GDPR Articles Cited
Automatically processed
Art. 10(GDPR)
Art. 15(GDPR)
Art. 32(GDPR)
Art. 5(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(b) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(e) GDPR
Art. 12(1) GDPR
Art. 12(3) GDPR
Art. 12(4) GDPR
Art. 24(1) GDPR
Art. 25(1) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 5(1)(b) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(e) GDPR
Art. 10(GDPR)
Art. 12(1) GDPR
Art. 12(3) GDPR
Art. 12(4) GDPR
Art. 15(GDPR)
Art. 24(GDPR)
Art. 32(GDPR)

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.

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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

On January 19, 2023, the controller’s security officer requested the Belgian National Security Authority (NSA) to extend the security clearance of one of their employees (the data subject), which was rejected by means of a reasoned decision on July 7, 2023 and communicated back to the controller’s security officer. The data subject and the governing body of the controller received the reasoned decision, which was then forwarded to the data subject’s hierarchical superior by the governing body of the controller. This triggered disciplinary investigations of the data subject in connection to allegations of indecent assault on a minor. On March 5, 2024, the data subject filed a complaint with the Belgian Data Protection Authority (APD/GBA) concerning the unlawful processing of their personal data by their employer, the controller. On March 27, 2024, the DPA declared the complaint admissible, leading to the DPA delivering a decision on the substance of the case. The Contentious Chamber found multiple GDPR violations by the controller. Article 5(1)(a) GDPR was breached by processing the NSA's reasoned decision without a valid legal basis, Article 5(1)(b) GDPR by sharing it with unauthorised parties contrary to its originally intended purpose, and Article 5(1)(f) GDPR by failing to ensure confidentiality of the personal data. Since the processing of personal data related to criminal offences, the controller additionally violated Article 10 GDPR. The lack of necessity for processing under both a legal obligation to which the controller is subject and public interest grounds breached Articles 6(1)(c) and 6(1)(e) GDPR. Furthermore, the controller violated Articles 12(1), (3), and (4) GDPR by failing to inform the data subject, delaying access requests, and improperly invoking judicial secrecy, along with Article 15 GDPR for denying a legitimate access request by the data subject. Finally, breaches of Articles 24(1), 25(1), and 32 GDPR were found due to the controlle

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 DOS-2024-01344 in BE

This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Decision Date

7 January 2025

Authority

Autorité de Protection des Données

GDPRhub ID

gdprhub-8784

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Automatically normalized and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case DOS-2024-01344 - Belgium (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: