COÖPERATIVE RABOBANK U.A. – 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.
Rabobank was taken to court by customers who wanted their credit registration removed. The court found that the registration was correct and did not need to be deleted. This case shows how banks can use credit registrations and the importance of balancing interests under GDPR.
What happened
Rabobank's customers requested the removal of their credit registration, claiming it was wrongly recorded.
Who was affected
Customers of Rabobank who had their credit registration recorded with the Credit Registration Office (BKR).
What the authority found
The court ruled that the credit registration was correctly recorded and did not need to be removed, as the bank's interest outweighed the customers' request.
Why this matters
This case highlights the importance of balancing interests under GDPR when it comes to credit registrations. It shows that banks can maintain such records if they are justified, even if customers request their removal.
GDPR Articles Cited
Rabobank granted the plaintiffs two mortgage loans. There were arrears about which Rabobank sent letters to the plaintiffs. In these letters, Rabobank stated that if a backlog of three months or more were to arise, this would be reported to the Credit Registration Office (BKR). The plaintiffs failed to pay the arrears. They tried to refinance the house through an intermediate but this was not possible due to the BKR registration. They asked the removal of this registration claiming that Rabobank did it wrongly. Rabobank informed them that the request was rejected. The plaintiffs claimed that on the basis of a balancing of interests, the registration should be deleted because the purpose of the registration no longer outweighs the interests of the plaintiffs upon its removal. They also claimed urgent interest in the removal. The Court found that the GDPR applies to the request for removal. The request shall be based on Article 21 in conjunction with Article 79 of the GDPR and Article 35(2) of the GDPR Implementation Act. If this request is rejected, a petition must be submitted to the court according to the mentioned Article 35(2). The Court also found that there was no urgent interest for the removal. The Court put forward a balancing test as required by Articles 21(1) and 6(1)(e) GDPR and Recital 69 GDPR. It found that the BKR registration was made correctly and the balancing of interest was at the disadvantage of the plaintiffs.
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for COÖPERATIVE RABOBANK U.A. in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. COÖPERATIVE RABOBANK U.A. - Netherlands (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: