SAMEN VEILIG MIDDEN-NEDERLAND – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2020)

In December 2016 the director of the school of the complainant's son filed a report with the child protective service. In December 2017 the report was investigated and closed after the consultation with the parents of the minor. In March 2020 the complainant filed a request with Samen Veilig, asking to provide her with copies of all complete log overviews, including all names of persons who have had access to the file of her son. Samen Veilig responded that it would provide the job titles of the employees, but not their names. Must Samen Veilig provide the names of the employees who have had access to the file of the complainant's son? The Court ruled that Samen Veilig did not strike the right balance in their assessment of interests. Samen Veilig has a valid interest of restricting access to the employee information to protect their privacy, when it's necessary for the exercise of their tasks or to investigate or end a (suspected) child abuse. However, these exceptions apply only in individual cases. In this specific case, it has not been asserted that there is any reason to believe that the complainant might misuse the information that will be provided to her. The mere mentioning of job title does not suffice and limits the complainant in the possibility to check whether the access to the file was lawful. Samen Veilig must provide complainant with the requested log files, including names of employees and access time stamps.