DPA case 132/2024 – 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.
A complaint against two parties regarding the sharing of a person's civil status was dismissed by the Belgian DPA. This is important because it clarifies that sharing such information can be lawful under certain circumstances. The DPA found no violation of GDPR in this case.
What happened
The complaint involved the sharing of a tenant's civil status change during a legal dispute.
Who was affected
The individual who filed the complaint regarding their civil status being shared.
What the authority found
The authority ruled that the sharing of the civil status was lawful due to legitimate interests in the context of a dispute.
Why this matters
This case illustrates that sharing personal information can be permissible in legal contexts. It reminds individuals and organizations to understand the legal grounds for data processing.
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.
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
The data subject filed a complaint to the Belgian DPA against (a) the owners of the building that the data subject was previously renting (hereinafter: controller 1) and (b) the First Instance Tribunal (hereinafter: controller 2). The complaint concerned the unlawful processing of the data subject´s civil status. The processing happened in the context of a litigation in front of controller 2. More specifically, Belgian law requires the tenant to notify the lessors of any change in their civil status. In this instance, the data subject informed controller 1 about their divorce who then communicated this information to controller 2. The data subject advanced two claims: - The data processing was unlawful under Article 6 GDPR; and - Controller 2 considered the change in civil status excessively as an infraction happened in 2013 cannot be justified by a divorce that happened in 2020. The DPA first asked the data subject to contact the two controllers. However, the data subject replied that the violation of the GDPR was so blatant and that they saw no reason to contact them. The DPA dismissed the case against (a) controller 1 because the request is manifestly unfounded and excessive on the basis of Article 57(4) GDPR. Particularly, the communication of the civil status change to controller 2 falls within the “legitimate interest” linked to their defence in the context of a dispute, and thus was in line with Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. Furthermore, the DPA dismissed the case against (b) controller 2 as the analysis of data processing has happened in connection with the exercise of a court's functions, rendering another court, and not the DPA, exclusively competent to examine the complaint. Finally, the DPA further considered that there is already an open administrative procedure with a decision concerning similar matters.
Outcome
Dismissed
The complaint or investigation was dismissed.
Related Enforcement Actions (0)
No other enforcement actions found for DPA case 132/2024 in BE
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 132/2024 - Belgium (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: