DPA case 52/2024 (notary) – Warning (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 Belgian notary received a warning for accidentally disclosing personal information in an email. The DPA found that the notary did not have adequate safeguards to protect sensitive data. This case emphasizes the importance of confidentiality in handling personal information.
What happened
The Belgian DPA issued a warning to a notary for disclosing personal details of heirs in an email to the wrong recipient.
Who was affected
The 17 heirs whose personal information was disclosed to an unintended recipient.
What the authority found
The DPA indicated that the notary's actions potentially violated GDPR confidentiality requirements but did not establish a breach of notification duties.
Why this matters
This warning highlights the necessity for professionals to implement strong data protection measures to prevent accidental disclosures. It serves as a reminder of the importance of confidentiality in handling personal data.
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
On 3 April 2024 the Belgian DPA’s Litigation Chamber issued a prima facie warning to an anonymised notary in decision 52/2024, DOS-2024-00220. An email containing a draft property-sale deed and settlement disclosed personal details of 17 heirs to an unintended recipient. The warning concerns potentially unlawful disclosure and inadequate confidentiality safeguards under Articles 5(1)(a), 5(1)(b), 5(1)(f), 6(1) and 32(1)(b) GDPR. The unintended recipient confirmed not opening the attachments and deleting the email; on the initial evidence a risk triggering notification under Articles 33 or 34 was considered unlikely, so no breach of those notification duties was established. The adopted order on page 7 is a warning under Article 58(2)(a), not a fine or a final decision on the merits. A request for merits reconsideration or judicial appeal remained possible.
Outcome
Warning
A formal warning issued by a DPA without a monetary penalty.
Related Enforcement Actions (0)
No other enforcement actions found for DPA case 52/2024 (notary) in BE
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 52/2024 (notary) - Belgium (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: