- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Netherlands · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case 200.278.124/01 – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2020)
Privacy enforcement record
This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
A Dutch court ruled that Rabobank did not have to remove a credit registration for two borrowers who faced financial difficulties. This decision is important because it shows that banks can keep records for legal reasons, even if customers request their removal.
What happened
Rabobank refused to erase a credit registration for borrowers who had financial problems.
Who was affected
The appellants, who are two individuals facing financial difficulties after losing a job.
What the authority found
The court decided that Rabobank had a legal obligation to keep the credit registration, so the request for removal was denied.
Why this matters
This ruling highlights that financial institutions can maintain records for legal reasons, which may limit individuals' rights to erase their data. It serves as a reminder for companies to understand their legal obligations regarding data retention.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 19 March 2026.
Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified, authority corrected.
Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources
In 2011 Rabobank loaned 70K EUR to the appellants with a monthly payment of 700 EUR. At that time one of the appellants had a well-paid job, which he lost in 2013 and he hadn't been able to find another job after that. Financial problem followed, and the appellants ended up selling their house and taking an additional loan from their son to settle the debt payment scheme with the mortgage company and Rabobank. As a result of the above, Rabobank made a record about the appellants' situation in the CKI in 2018; the registration is schedules to be removed in 2023. In 2019 the appellants sent a letter to Rabobank requesting it to remove the registration, based on GDPR Articles 16 and 17 in combination with articles 21 and 6. Rabobank rejected the request and this decision was upheld by the Court. Appellants are challenging this decision of the Court. Should Rabobank remove the appellants' credit registrations from the CKI register? Regarding the legal basis of processing, the Court ruled that the applicable legal basis in this case is legal obligation under articles 4:32(1) and 4:34 of the Financial Supervision Act (Wet op het financieel toezicht). The Court pointed to the extensive considerations given to this matter by the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch in a similar case. This means that the appellants cannot exercise their rights to erasure (Article 17 GDPR) and objection to processing (Article 21 GDPR), so appeal based on these articles was dismissed. When deciding on the necessity and proportionality of keeping the CKI record, the Court considered the following: 1) The appellants themselves admitted that they were hindered by the registration, they were not in a distressing situation as a result of the registration; 2) One of the appellants has enjoyed good income for a long time, but that income did not protect him from a difficult financial situation; 3) The appellants have not sufficiently demonstrated that they have done everything in their power to
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 200.278.124/01 in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Ruling Date
17 December 2020
Authority
DPA GHAL
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 200.278.124/01 - Netherlands (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: