- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Netherlands · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Joint Tax office Lococensus Tricijn – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2021)
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 on a case involving a tax office that mistakenly sent a letter to the wrong address. This ruling is important as it addresses how companies should handle personal data breaches and user objections. It emphasizes the need for organizations to be careful with personal information to avoid mishaps.
What happened
The Dutch Tax Office sent a letter to a user's old address, leading to a data breach.
Who was affected
The user whose personal data was mistakenly sent to a third party was affected.
What the authority found
The court determined that the tax office's actions were part of its statutory duties and did not require user consent for processing.
Why this matters
This case underscores the importance of proper data handling and communication with users, especially when it comes to breaches and consent.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 20 March 2026.
Processing notes: 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
In June 2019, the defendant, the Dutch Tax Office (Gemeenschappelijke belastingkantoor Lococensus-Tricijn', 'GBLT'), addressed a letter to the claimant. However, the destination of the letter was the claimant's old residential address. The claimant sent an email to the defendant, drawing attention to this error and emphasising that, as a result, his personal data had reached a third party. In its response, the defendant apologised, and proposed that the appropriate action would be to ask the third party to delete the relevant data and confirm this. The claimant indicated they were unable to respond to this proposal until certain ambiguities were resolved regarding the content of the leaked data. In August 2019, the claimant sent another email to the defendant, in which he asked a number of questions regarding the provision of his email address by the defendant to a company called 'KCM Survey BV', as well as other third parties for customer research purposes. Among other things, the complainant stated that he had not given his consent for this transfer, and asked what the legal basis was for sharing his data with third parties, and which third parties his data was shared with. The defendant responded stating that it considered processing for customer research purposes to be part of its statutory duties - more specifically, evaluating and ensuring the quality of the implementation of the Tax Act ('belastingwet') - and that therefore it does not consider it necessary to rely on the consent of data subjects. It did add, however, that it considered the claimant's communication as an objection to the processing of his email address for customer research purposes, and that it would no longer process the email for this purpose. Several months later, on 16 February 2020, the claimant asked for more information about the initial data breach involving the letter, as it was still not clear to him which documents were leaked. On 28 February 2020, by primary
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Joint Tax office Lococensus Tricijn in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Ruling Date
11 August 2021
Authority
DPA RbOverijssel
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Joint Tax office Lococensus Tricijn - Netherlands (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: