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

Court case ROT 19/3036 – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2021)

Court Ruling
Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens19 March 2021Netherlands
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 court in the Netherlands ruled that a company did not violate privacy laws when it shared personal data with a service provider for membership management. The court found that the company had a valid reason for processing the user's data and complied with the user's requests. This decision highlights the importance of having a clear legal basis for sharing data.

What happened

The court ruled that a company shared personal data with DEX Online Services without violating privacy laws.

Who was affected

The ruling affected a user whose personal data was shared with DEX Online Services for membership administration.

What the authority found

The court decided that the company had a valid legal basis for processing the user's personal data and complied with their requests for removal.

Why this matters

This case shows that companies can share data with service providers if they have a valid reason. It reminds businesses to ensure they have proper legal grounds when handling personal data.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 5 GDPR
Art. 28 GDPR
Art. 4(1) GDPR
Art. 4(2) GDPR
Art. 4(7) GDPR
Art. 4(8) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(b) GDPR
Art. 77 GDPR
Art. 4(11) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 4(1) GDPR
Art. 4(2) GDPR
Art. 4(7) GDPR
Art. 4(8) GDPR
Art. 4(11) GDPR
Art. 5(GDPR)
Art. 6(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(b) GDPR
Art. 28(GDPR)
Art. 77(GDPR)

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

Decision AuthorityRb. Rotterdam
Reviewed AuthorityAP (The Netherlands)

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 20 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 controller engaged DEX Online Services to automate its membership administration, which contained personal data of the plaintiff. He also offered its members the opportunity to use the Yogibit app to gain access to their own data, so that they can, for example, deregister and register for lessons. On January 30, 2019, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the Dutch DPA against the controller. The DPA rejected the complaint by decision of 27 February 2019, because it found no obvious violation of the GDPR . Plaintiff has objected to this rejection. According to the DPA, both the controller and DEX Online Services have complied with the claimant's request for removal within the meaning of Article 17 of the GDPR. The controller has a valid basis for the processing of the plaintiff's personal data and it has not been shown that his personal data has been processed in the YogiBit app. In appeal, the plaintiff argues that the controller should have first explicitly requested permission from him before his personal data would be provided to DEX Online Services. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has forgotten to look at the definition of 'consent', as set out in Article 4 (11) of the GDPR . Additionally, it was not necessary for the controller to enable DEX Online Services for its student administration. According to the plaintiff, the controller could also have chosen to hire a secretary. In addition, the plaintiff stated that as a free EU citizen he has the right to choose whether he wants to go along with the choice of the controller for that third party. Plaintiff argued that it was up to DEX Online Services to ascertain that the controller complied with the conditions set out in Article 6 of the GDPR . In his view, on the basis of Article 5(2) GDPR the controller has an accountability obligation and must be able to demonstrate compliance with Article 5, first paragraph, of the GDPR . The plaintiff argued that the decision did not provide evidence of such com

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case ROT 19/3036 in NL

This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Ruling Date

19 March 2021

Authority

Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case ROT 19/3036 - Netherlands (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: