Enforcing jurisdiction
Netherlands · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation
Privacy topics

STICHTING RECLASSERING NEDERLAND – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2020)

Court Ruling
DPA RbGelderland24 August 2020Netherlands
final
Court Ruling

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 the Parole Office did not fully comply with a request for access to personal data from a person on probation. The court found that some documents were excluded for valid reasons, but this case highlights the importance of transparency in how personal data is handled.

What happened

The Parole Office provided limited access to personal data requested by a person on probation.

Who was affected

The individual on probation who requested access to their personal data held by the Parole Office.

What the authority found

The court decided that the Parole Office properly excluded certain documents from the access request to protect privacy and facilitate its operations.

Why this matters

This ruling emphasizes the need for organizations to balance transparency with privacy concerns. It serves as a reminder for companies to be clear about what data they can share and why.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 12 GDPR
Art. 15 GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 12(GDPR)
Art. 15(GDPR)

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

National Law Articles
AI-identified
Art 41 UAVG
Decision AuthorityRb. Gelderland

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 17 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, 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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

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

Ruling Date

24 August 2020

Authority

DPA RbGelderland

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Automatically normalized and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. STICHTING RECLASSERING NEDERLAND - Netherlands (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: