- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Netherlands · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- No confirmed legal basis recorded.
- Privacy topics
Court case 201905087/1/A2 – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2020)
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.
The Dutch Council of State ruled on a case where a citizen's personal data was shared between local authorities without proper legal grounds. This matters because it highlights the importance of protecting personal information and ensuring it is shared only when allowed. It serves as a reminder for public agencies to follow data protection rules.
What happened
The local authorities shared a citizen's name and address via email without a valid legal basis.
Who was affected
The citizen whose data was shared without consent was affected by this action.
What the authority found
The Council of State found that the authorities violated data protection principles by not minimizing the data shared.
Why this matters
This ruling sets a precedent for how public agencies handle personal data. It encourages all organizations to be cautious about sharing personal information.
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 — 20 March 2026.
Processing notes: articles corrected, authority corrected.
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
The Dutch Council of State ruled on a claim for damages filed by a citizen whose data (name and address) were communicated via email between local authorities. This communication was intended to exchange data between municipalities to prevent abuse of the Public Administration Act when several requests for access to documents were made by the same applicant. The Council of State had to determine whether the processing of information by the local authorities had a legal ground under Article 6 of the GDPR, and whether such a violation would entitle the claimant to a compensation for moral damage. The lower court already recognized that the communication of the residence of the applicant was violating the principle of data minimization. However, regarding the claim for damages, the CoS notes that though Article 82(1) of the GDPR states that full compensation for actual non-material damage resulting from breaches of the GDPR must take place in a manner that does justice to the objectives of the Regulation, the GDPR does not specify how the non-material damage is to be determined and calculated. However, the Court of Justice has consistently held that the damage to be compensated must be real and certain. In this case, the CoS considers that the appellant does not bring the prove of his/her actual damage caused by the violation. The fact that an infringement of the AVG may result in material or immaterial damage and that a person concerned must receive full and actual compensation for the damage he has suffered does not mean that a breach of the AVG by definition results in damage and that damage must not have been 'real and certain'.
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 201905087/1/A2 in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Ruling Date
4 January 2020
Authority
DPA RVS
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 201905087/1/A2 - Netherlands (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: