Aegon and unknown โ 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.
A court in the Netherlands ruled that a credit registration should be removed earlier than planned because it was affecting a person's ability to get a loan. This case is important because it shows how credit information must be handled carefully to avoid unfairly impacting someone's financial opportunities.
What happened
The court ordered the removal of a credit registration from a credit information system earlier than originally scheduled.
Who was affected
The person whose credit information was registered, affecting their ability to obtain new loans.
What the authority found
The court decided the credit registration should be removed earlier, but did not agree to impose a penalty payment.
Why this matters
This ruling emphasizes the need for accurate and fair handling of credit information, as it can significantly impact a person's financial options. It serves as a reminder for companies to regularly review and update credit records.
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
The claimant requested the defendant to remove certain special codes, that link to their creditworthiness, from the Central Credit Information System (CKI) of the Bureau for Credit Registration. The registration of these special codes had resulted from the claimant's inability to repay their mortgage debt to the defendant. The registration was dated September 2018 and remained in effect for a period of five years. Hence, the claimant would not be removed from the BKI until September 2023. Since the registration had the effect of preventing the claimant from taking out a new loan, the claimant requested the defendant to remove their personal data from the CKI. However, the claimant made some procedural mistakes. They first requested their personal data to be removed on 22 August 2019. The defendant rejected to this request on 10 September 2019. Afterwards, the claimant lodged an appeal to this decision, but erroneously brought the defendant's sister company to Court. The claimant submitted their second request for deletion, which was identical to the first one, on 28 April 2020. After the defendant rejected the request again, the claimant submitted appeal to the decision. However, this time, they brought the right party to Court. In the first instance, the claimant demanded the removal of the registration accompanied by a daily penalty payment. The Court ordered the defendant to remove the registration on 1 January 2023 instead of September 2023. However the demanded penalty payment was rejected. The applicant did not agree with the ruling and brought the case for appeal. The claimant put forward three grounds of appeal against the contested decision. First of all, the claimant points to the wrongful absence of relevant facts. Secondly, the claimant argued that the Court should have first assessed whether the registration was still necessary before weighing up the interests. Finally, the claimant challenges the Court's finding that the registration should no
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Aegon and unknown in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Aegon and unknown - Netherlands (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: