Hotel Gaming BV – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2020)

To prove his claims in a litigation against Hotel Gaming, the plaintiff wishes to have witnesses heard. Those witnesses were former employees of the defendant. The plaintiff however does not have the necessary address details and dates of birth for the witness calls, and Hotel Gaming refuses to provide these details to the plaintiff. In an incidental claim, the plaintiff therefore requests the District Court to order Hotel Gaming to inspect and copy the salary specifications of its former workers or to otherwise provide their address details and dates of birth. Hotel Gaming disputes the plaintiff's claim that he has a "legitimate interest" under article 6(1)f of the GDPR and that this legitimate interest outweighs the data subjects' (former employees called as witnesses) interest in privacy protection. Hotel Gaming argues in this respect that the security of its former workers is at stake, because the plaintiff might try to intimidate them after obtaining their personal data. Is the processing of the requested personal data lawful on the basis of Article 6(1)f of the GDPR or should the data subjects' interests or fundamental rights take precedence? In other words, must the importance of finding the truth give way to the importance of confidentiality? Pursuant to the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff has a right of inspection and a copy of documents vis-à-vis the person who has them at his disposal, except if there are compelling reasons not to do so. The District Court is of the opinion that, although providing the requested data constitutes an invasion of the privacy of the defendant's former workers, this invasion is not sufficiently serious to be regarded as a compelling reason within the meaning of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure or to be judged contrary to Article 6(1)f of the GDPR. The District Court considers that a "legitimate interest" should be considered present if the requested data are relevant to the plaintiff's determination of his