STICHTING RECLASSERING NEDERLAND – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2020)
General GDPR enforcement action
This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
The Dutch Parole Office didn't fully comply with a man's request to access all his personal data while he was on probation. They withheld some documents, citing privacy and operational reasons. This case highlights the complexities of accessing personal data and the exceptions that can apply.
What happened
The Parole Office did not provide a full overview of personal data documents to a former probationer, citing statutory exceptions.
Who was affected
A man on probation who requested access to all documents containing his personal data.
What the authority found
The court found that the Parole Office could withhold certain documents to protect privacy and ensure employees can perform their duties effectively.
Why this matters
This ruling shows that not all personal data requests will result in full disclosure, especially when operational and privacy concerns are involved. Businesses should understand the balance between transparency and protecting sensitive internal communications.
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
The Parole Office processed personal data of the plaintiff while he was on probation between 2014 and 2020. On 13 august 2018 plaintiff submitted the right of access request to the Parole Office. On 9 November 2018 the Parole Office provided plaintiff with the overview of the documents, notes and emails that contain his personal data. The overview included the number, date, and a short explanation of each document. For example: “24. 1-12-2014 Email with client regarding the appointment”. The Parole Office excluded the following categories of documents from the overview and did not provide them to the plaintiff: 1) Internal notes and communication between the employees of the Parole Office about the rehabilitation process; 2) The correspondence and communication between the Parole Office and the Public Prosecutor’s Office about the rehabilitation process; 3) The correspondence and communication between the Parole Office and the Custodial Institutions Agency about the rehabilitation process. The plaintiff requests the Parole Office to provide him with a full overview of the documents containing his personal data, he also requests to be allowed to access to these documents, should he want to. The Parole Office explained to the plaintiff that the excluded documents fall under statutory exceptions for two reasons: a) this will help its employees and the employees of the concerned agencies to perform their tasks and freely exchange opinions, which is necessary for the execution of their duties; b) These documents cannot be shared with the plaintiff to protect privacy and personal data of the employees of the concerned agencies. The Parole Office also argued that its own internal reports are not personal data, but rather the impressions of the Parole Office employees. The Parole Office refers to a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of June 17, 2014 (joined cases C-141/12 and C-372/12), in which it was ruled that a legal analysis based on personal d
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for STICHTING RECLASSERING NEDERLAND in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. STICHTING RECLASSERING NEDERLAND - Netherlands (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: