Court case 201903166/1/A3 – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2020)
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 Dutch court ruled that a man could not access police data about himself, even though it was shared with a local government project. The court decided that police data rules meant the information was still protected. This case shows how different rules can apply to data depending on its source.
What happened
A court ruled that a man could not access police data about himself, even though it was shared with a local government project.
Who was affected
Individuals whose personal data is processed by police and shared with other entities like local government projects.
What the authority found
The court held that the mayor was correct in denying access to police data, as it remains protected under the Dutch Police Data Act despite being shared with the Security House.
Why this matters
This ruling clarifies that police data retains its protected status even when shared with other organizations. It highlights the complexities of data access rights when multiple authorities are involved.
GDPR Articles Cited
It was announced to the complainant that he will be placed on the Top-X list. This is a list compiled by the Safety House, a partnership between municipalities, the police, the Public Prosecution Service, the Custodial Institutions Service and a large number of civil society organizations, including names of persons or groups that cause nuisance or crime. In response to this, the complainant requested the mayor to remove him from the list and to give him access to all personal data relating to him under the Security House. The mayor has explained how the personal data of the complainant has been processed by the Safety House and has given access to his personal data from the Probation Service, Public Prosecution Service and the digital recording thereof by the Safety House for the Top-X registration. The mayor has also given partial access to his personal data in the Safety House Registration Form. The mayor has refused the access to what the mayor designates as him concerning police data and consultation reports from the Security House. The question was whether the mayor should have given the complainant access to the personal data concerning him from the police. The Council of State confirmed that the mayor should not have given the complainant access to the personal data concerning him from the police. According to the Dutch Police Data Act, data protection rules do not apply to the processing of personal data for the purpose of performing the police task. The fact that the police have shared the personal data with the mayor in the context of the Security House does not mean that there is no longer any police data. It follows from the Police Data Act (Article 1 (a)) that any personal data processed in the context of the performance of the police task must be regarded as police data.
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 201903166/1/A3 in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 201903166/1/A3 - Netherlands (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: