Court case 200.280.852/01 – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2021)
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 Amsterdam court ruled that the University of Amsterdam could use online proctoring software during exams due to COVID-19 restrictions. The court found that the software had a legal basis under GDPR. This case shows that extraordinary circumstances can justify increased surveillance measures.
What happened
The court allowed the University of Amsterdam to use online proctoring software for exams during COVID-19.
Who was affected
Students at the University of Amsterdam who were monitored during online exams.
What the authority found
The court found that the use of proctoring software was legally justified under GDPR due to COVID-19 restrictions.
Why this matters
This decision indicates that exceptional situations like a pandemic can justify the use of surveillance tools. Educational institutions should ensure they have a legal basis for such measures and assess their impact on privacy.
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
The case concerns a civil dispute between the plaintiffs Central Student Council (CSR) at the University of Amsterdam ('UvA'), the Student Council at the Faculty of Economics and Business (FSR) of the UvA, and an individual student against the defendant, the UvA. The outbreak of Covid19 caused the Dutch government to close the universities on 16 March 2020. Due to the closure, it was not possible for the UvA to hold exams on site. After some research and testing, the UvA decided to use an online proctoring tool, essentially a monitoring software called Proctorio. This software allows the university to monitor student behaviour at home while they are taking the exam to see if the student is attempting to cheat on the exam. Proctorio is installed as a browser plugin. It continuously records the test taker's webcam, microphone, and screen. In addition, the software monitors the student's behaviour to detect unusual behaviour, such as if the student often looks away from the screen, or if there is ambient noise in the room that might indicate that someone else is in the same room with the student, or if the student types more or less than other test takers. The software also monitors the computer's internet traffic, the presence of secondary monitors. The plaintiffs took the university to court by filing a motion for a preliminary injunction with the District Court of Amsterdam. The district court ruled in favour of UVA, finding that the government's COVID-19 measures did not allow for suitable alternatives and that the surveillance had a legal basis in Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals Amsterdam Court, seeking an ordinary ruling (not a preliminary injunction). Before rolling out the software in a real-world scenario, the UvA conducted three simulated tests in April 2020. In the meantime, the UvA asked its own DPO (Data Protection Officer) for advice and received a positive response. The UvA then conducted a DPIA (Data Protection Imp
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 200.280.852/01 in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 200.280.852/01 - Netherlands (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: