DPA case 07/2021 (accounting provider and former notarial associate) – Processing Ban (Belgium, 2021)
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.
An accounting provider received a reprimand for disclosing accounting data to a former associate. The recipient was separately prohibited from processing the email and ordered to notify his lawyer. Neither controller was fined.
What happened
An email with 32 attachments mixed association records and the complainant’s personal-company information; the unintended recipient forwarded it for use in a dispute.
Who was affected
Two anonymised, separately responsible controllers: accounting provider Y1 and the complainant’s former notarial associate Y2. Joint controllership was not proven.
What the authority found
Y1 received a reprimand for unlawful, incompatible and excessive disclosure. Y2 received a permanent processing prohibition and notification order. The Chamber did not establish the alleged access, security or breach-notification infringements.
Why this matters
The remedies and established violations differ for the sender and recipient. The decision cannot be reduced to a generic upheld complaint or a blanket prohibition on sending evidence to lawyers.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Entities Involved
Source checks
Secondary-source text retrieved.
Review needed — 18 October 2026.
Processing notes: entity split needed, source review conflict.
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 29 January 2021 the Belgian DPA’s Litigation Chamber issued decision 07/2021, DOS-2019-06201, concerning two separately responsible anonymised controllers. An accounting provider (Y1) accidentally sent a complainant’s personal-company accounting information in an email with 32 attachments to her former notarial associate (Y2); Y2 then forwarded it to his lawyer for use in their dispute. The Chamber reprimanded Y1 for incompatible further processing, lack of a lawful basis and excessive disclosure under Articles 5(1)(b) and 6(4), 5(1)(a) and 6(1), and 5(1)(c) GDPR. It permanently prohibited Y2’s processing of the email and attachments and ordered him to notify his lawyer of that prohibition, after finding no lawful basis under Articles 5(1)(a) and 6(1). Joint controllership was not established. On the evidence in this particular case it did not establish infringements of the access right or Articles 32 and 33, and imposed no administrative fine. This merits decision followed the Market Court’s annulment of an earlier insufficiently reasoned dismissal; the original source does not establish a later appeal outcome or legal finality. The decision does not state that all disclosure to a lawyer is unlawful: the finding concerns these data, circumstances and absence of an Article 6 basis.
Outcome
Processing Ban
A ban on processing activities imposed by the DPA.
Related Enforcement Actions (0)
No other enforcement actions found for DPA case 07/2021 (accounting provider and former notarial associate) in BE
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 07/2021 (accounting provider and former notarial associate) - Belgium (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: