BV QARIN ROTTERDAM, MOBILITY CENTRAL, VLAAMSE GEMEENTSCHAP – Court Ruling (Belgium, 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.
Belgium's Council of State ruled that using AWS cloud services for a government tender did not violate GDPR. The decision clarifies that encryption can be a valid measure to protect data when using cloud services. This case is significant for companies considering cloud providers, as it shows the importance of implementing strong data protection measures.
What happened
The Council of State upheld the use of AWS cloud services in a government tender, finding no GDPR violations.
Who was affected
The Dutch company that challenged the tender decision, arguing inadequate data protection with AWS cloud services.
What the authority found
The court found that the use of encryption with AWS cloud services could adequately protect data, aligning with GDPR requirements.
Why this matters
This ruling supports the use of encryption as a supplementary measure for data protection in cloud services. Companies should ensure robust security measures when using cloud providers to comply with GDPR.
GDPR Articles Cited
The Flemish Authorities granted a tender to an EU based-entity of a US company using the AWS cloud services. A Dutch company which was not chosen by the Flemish Authorities in the tender process challenged this decision before the Council of State on the basis of the: * violation of the provisions of the GDPR on transfers, since no adequate protection of the data could be afforded in the US. The Dutch company relied in particular on an [https://overheid.vlaanderen.be/sites/default/files/media/VTC/VTC_A_2020_05_advies.pdf opinion] from the Flemish Supervisory Commission ('Vlaamse Toezichtcommissie voor de verwerking van persoonsgegevens) according to which the use of AWS could not be compliant with the Schrems II ruling and the GDPR; * breach of Article 28 GDPR (the choice of a the processor does not provide sufficient guarantees); * breach of Article 32 GDPR (lack of appropriate technical and organisational measures) * lack of motivation of the decision to grant the tender The Council of State held that: * the EDPB and the Flemish Supervisory Commission were not opposed to the use of encryption as such, and such use could be an adequate supplementary measure to the SCCs in some circumstances; * the choice of the processor was not violating Article 28 - the claimant could not demonstrate that the controller and processor did not implement the necessary technical and organisation measures; * the decision was sufficiently motivated.
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for BV QARIN ROTTERDAM, MOBILITY CENTRAL, VLAAMSE GEMEENTSCHAP in BE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. BV QARIN ROTTERDAM, MOBILITY CENTRAL, VLAAMSE GEMEENTSCHAP - Belgium (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: