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 legal position (not only if the requested data contain relevant information to support the plaintiff's assertions). This is the case here, as the testimony of a witness can contribute to the finding of the truth in civil proceedings. When outweighing the legitimate interest of the plaintiff, the District Court states that the data requested by the plaintiff do not relate to any sensitive personal data. The data in question are moreover included in the Basic Registration of Persons and can be consulted by the plaintiff's lawyer without the intervention of Hotel Gaming. Hotel Gaming has insufficiently substantiated the fear of intimidation of witnesses by the plaintiff. The Court therefore condemns Hotel Gaming to provide a copy of the most recent salary statement of its former workers. However, the requested data may only be provided to the extent necessary to fulfill the purpose of the legitimate interest of the plaintiff, namely the proof of his statements by means of witnesses. In order to be able to summon witnesses, it is sufficient to have the names, addresses and dates of birth of the witnesses. The other information mentioned in the salary specifications is not necessary and should therefore be made illegible by Hotel Gaming. Assuming that the witnesses will be summoned by the plaintiff's lawyer, the District Court moreover considers that it is not necessary to provide the salary specifications to the plaintiff in person. The requested information may only be provided by Hotel Gaming to the plaintiff's lawyer.