Anonymous Mother – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2020)

In September 2020, a mother requested copies of the youth files of three of her children from a private foundation that provides assistance under the Dutch Youth Act (Jeuwgdwet). About six weeks later, in October, she sent the foundation a letter stating that it had failed to respond to her request within the statutory time limit and demanding financial compensation. In early November 2020, the mother filed an administrative appeal regarding the foundation's failure to respond to her request. In the request, she referred to the Dutch General Administrative Law Act (Algemene wet bestuursrecht, AwB), the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Dutch Youth Act (Juegdwet), the GDPR and the former Dutch Data Protection Act (Wbp), which was in force before the GDPR. The court first considered the provisions on which the claim was based. The court found that the application was an access request based on Article 15 GDPR in conjunction with [https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0034925/2020-07-01/#Hoofdstuk7_Paragraaf7.3_Artikel7.3.10 7.3.10 of the Youth Act]. Secondly, the court considered whether it had jurisdiction to determine the matter. The court looked at the provisions of the General Administrative Law Act (AwB). [https://wetten.overheid.nl/jci1.3:c:BWBR0005537&hoofdstuk=1&titeldeel=1.1&artikel=1:3&z=2021-07-10&g=2021-07-10 Article 1:3(1) of the AwB] defines what an administrative decision is under Dutch administrative law: a written decision on an administrative body acting on the basis of a public law. Furthermore, [https://wetten.overheid.nl/jci1.3:c:BWBR0005537&hoofdstuk=6&afdeling=6.1&artikel=6:2&z=2021-07-10&g=2021-07-10 Article 6:2(b) of the AwB] stipulates that if an administrative body fails to respond to an individual's request in a timely manner, the request is deemed to be rejected so that the applicant can file an administrative appeal. The court noted that [https://wetten.overheid.nl/jci1.3:c:BWBR0034925&hoofdstuk=7&paragraaf=7.3&artikel=7.3.17&z=2020-07-01&g=2020-07-01 Article 7.3.17 of the Youth Act] was amended on January 1, 2015. This provision clarifies that private youth assistance providers are no longer considered administrative bodies. The court also referred to the already settled case law which also establishes the same thing. The court therefore found that it did not have jurisdiction to decide the case. This was because the mother had brought an administrative claim against a non-administrative body. The court could not see that the alleged violations of the ECHR would lead to a different conclusion. Finally, the court informed the mother that she could instead file her complaint as a civil dispute.