Enforcing jurisdiction
Netherlands · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation
Privacy topics

Netherlands Bar Association – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2019)

Court Ruling
DPA RbAmsterdam25 September 2019Netherlands
final
Court Ruling

Privacy enforcement record

This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

A Dutch court ruled that the Netherlands Bar Association was right to keep a list of suspended lawyers public. This is important because it shows that public interest can outweigh individual privacy concerns in certain situations.

What happened

The Bar Association refused to remove a suspended lawyer's name from its public list.

Who was affected

A lawyer whose name was published on the Bar Association's list of suspended lawyers.

What the authority found

The court found that the public interest in maintaining the list outweighed the lawyer's interest in privacy.

Why this matters

This case highlights the balance between public interest and personal privacy. Website operators should consider how their content affects both privacy and public information.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 17 GDPR
Art. 18 GDPR
Art. 21 GDPR
Art. 12(3) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 12(3) GDPR
Art. 17(GDPR)
Art. 18(GDPR)
Art. 21(GDPR)

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

National Law Articles
AI-identified
Article 34 of the GDPR Implementing Act (Wet bescherming persoonsgegevens - Wbp)
Decision AuthorityRb. Amsterdam

Source checks

Secondary-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 18 March 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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The Dutch Bar Association published the plaintiff’s name on the online list of suspended and removed lawyers, after a disciplinary measure of unconditional suspension had been imposed on him. The plaintiff asked Google to remove the list from the search results relating to his name. Google refused and indicated the website operator as the competent entity for this removal. The Association, which was the website operator, rejected his request. The Court recalled Article 34 of the Dutch Data Protection Act (Wet bescherming persoonsgegevens - Wbp) which foresees that a written decision on a request submitted under Articles 15 to 22 GDPR shall be regarded as falling within the time limits referred to in Article 12(3) GDPR and, in so far as it has been taken by an administrative body, such as the Bar Association, this decision shall be deemed as a decision within the meaning of the General Administrative Law Act. Therefore, the Association rightly refused to grant the request for erasure under Article 17 GDPR. Moreover, the Court found that the plaintiff did not justify his reliance on Article 18 GDPR. As for Article 21 GDPR, the Court ruled that the public interest in the publication of the list outweighs the plausible interest of the plaintiff to apply for a job unencumbered. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal as unfounded.

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Netherlands Bar Association in NL

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

Details

Ruling Date

25 September 2019

Authority

DPA RbAmsterdam

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Netherlands Bar Association - Netherlands (2019). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: