Court case C/13/677172 / HA RK 19-435 – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2020)
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 Dutch court rejected a person's request to delete their personal data from a synagogue's records and denied their claim for damages. The court found that the synagogue had already deleted the data before the ruling, and the claimed damages were not justified. This case highlights the importance of timely data management and the challenges of proving damages in privacy cases.
What happened
The court rejected a request to delete personal data and denied a claim for damages against a synagogue.
Who was affected
A person and their family who were members of the Dutch Israeli Main Synagogue.
What the authority found
The court ruled that the request for data deletion was moot as the data had already been deleted, and the damages claimed were not supported.
Why this matters
This case illustrates the difficulties individuals face in claiming damages for privacy violations and emphasizes the need for organizations to manage data requests promptly. It also shows that legal costs are not typically recoverable as damages in such cases.
GDPR Articles Cited
Data subject and their spouse applied for membership of the Nederlands Israëlitische Hoofdsynagoge (the Dutch Israeli Main Synagogue), the controller, in 2014. On 22 March 2019 data subject requested that the membership of him and his family be terminated immediately and that all personal data be destroyed as soon as possible. They repeated this request 31 October 2019 after having received no substantive reply of the data controller. On the same day, the data controller replied that they did not store the data subject's personal data any longer than required, but that it is necessary to retain their personal data indefinitely, even after termination of the membership, because this personal data is required to verify "halachic status of [data subject's] descendants". Data subject replied that this had no effect to his request. In response the controller said that they would not be granted. On 17 November 2019, data subject filed a complaint with the AP (Dutch DPA). The complaint was still under consideration at the time of this court case. On 19 December, data subject filed a case and requested the District Court to order the data controller to delete their personal data, and pay claimant €1,500 in damages on the basis of Article 82 GDPR. Data subject argued to have had €250 in material damages for the costs of the trial, €500 in immaterial damages because of "loss of control of their personal data", and €750 in immaterial damages because of stress and uncertainty relating to the trial. The District Court rejected all claims. First, the Court held that data subject no longer had any interest in the erasure request, because the controller deleted the personal data before the Court gave its verdict. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the claimed €250 in material damages were legal costs, and, therefore, do not qualify for damage compensation. Moreover, it held that the claim of €750 in immaterial damages is inherent to filing a court case and finds no basis for comp
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case C/13/677172 / HA RK 19-435 in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case C/13/677172 / HA RK 19-435 - Netherlands (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: