Stichting Philadelphia Zorg – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2020)

By separate decisions dated 15 October 2018, the Amsterdam Legal Aid Board rejected appellant's requests for additional legal support. Appellant requested a copy of his and his stepdaughter’s personal data under Article 15(3) of the GDPR from Zilveren Kruis, Stichting Philadelphia Zorg, Stichting Cordaan and another party. On 30 August 2018 and 28 September 2018, appellant submitted six applications for additional legal assistance in proceedings against these parties under Article 35 of the GDPR Implementation act, on the grounds that, in his opinion, insufficient personal data had been provided. The Amsterdam Court of First Instance rejected the appellant's complaint on the ground that this problem did not need a lawyer. Appellant disputes this decision in the Council of State. According to the appellant, he only received an overview of the personal data in response to his data subject request, although he needed more information for a successful damage compensation procedure. He also argues that the GDPR case law demonstrates that this is a complex legal area. Appellant also pointed out that his data subject requests were, in essence, rejected, and his opponents hired large law firms to handle the case, which makes it emotionally distressing for him and his stepdaughter. Finally, he also has a pending appeal against the FOI request to Philadelphia before the Council of State. All of this proves, in the appellant's view, that the case is legally and factually complex. Appellant also questioned the fairness of the policy of the Amsterdam Legal Aid Board and claimed the violation of the right to effective remedy and fair trial. The Council rejected the appeal based on the following: * The policy of the Legal Aid Board does not in general provide for legal support for data subject requests under Article 35 of the GDPR Implementation action, but exception can be made where cases are considered complex enough. * The arguments paid down by the appellant did not prove the legal and factual complexity of the case. The claim that his DSARs were rejected were not supported by any details or documents. * The Board was entitled to expect the appellant to explain in his own words why he expected more data in response to his data subject access request. * The fact that there are several ongoing proceedings, including the FOI request appeal, does not in itself prove the complexity of the proceedings for which appellants' requests were submitted. * Nor does the fact that conducting the proceeding is emotionally burdensome for the appellant.