DPA case 91/2024 (bank) – 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.
The Belgian DPA dismissed a complaint about a bank requiring identity documents to release a rental deposit. It relied on anti-money-laundering identification duties and policy grounds for not pursuing the case. No fine was imposed.
What happened
The bank requested the landlords’ identity-card copies or attendance before releasing a rental deposit; the complainant challenged that requirement.
Who was affected
The respondent was an anonymised bank. The complainant acted concerning the identity documents of her parents, the landlords.
What the authority found
The Chamber found no prima facie GDPR infringement on the available record and dismissed on policy grounds under Article 95(1)(3) WOG, without conducting a full merits examination.
Why this matters
A policy dismissal in a specific anti-money-laundering context does not amount to a blanket approval of all bank identity-document requests.
Source checks
Secondary-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 18 October 2026.
Processing notes: 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
On 13 June 2024 the Belgian DPA’s Litigation Chamber issued decision 91/2024, DOS-2024-00832, dismissing a complaint against an anonymised bank under Article 95(1)(3) WOG. The complainant contested a request for her parents’ identity-card copies or personal attendance when releasing a rental deposit. The Chamber considered the bank’s ongoing identification and verification duties under anti-money-laundering law and found no prima facie GDPR infringement on the submitted material. It dismissed on policy grounds because the complaint was unlikely to succeed and, subordinately, because the broader rental-deposit dispute was more appropriately addressed elsewhere, referring to Ombudsfin. This was a decision not to pursue a merits examination, not a sanction or an unrestricted ruling authorising every identity-card request by every bank. No fine was imposed. The original source’s appeal notice does not establish later finality or an appeal outcome.
Outcome
Dismissed
The complaint or investigation was dismissed.
Related Enforcement Actions (0)
No other enforcement actions found for DPA case 91/2024 (bank) in BE
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 91/2024 (bank) - Belgium (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: