Belgian DPA (Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit) – Court Ruling (Belgium, 2019)
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 Belgian court reviewed a case where a neighbor posted videos online to highlight smoke issues caused by another neighbor. The court criticized the Belgian DPA for potentially biased advice but did not make a final ruling on the videos. This case shows the complexity of privacy disputes between individuals.
What happened
A neighbor uploaded videos of smoke issues caused by another neighbor onto YouTube, leading to a privacy complaint.
Who was affected
The neighbor whose smoke issues were recorded and shared online without consent.
What the authority found
The court criticized the Belgian DPA for advising the complainant and later handling the complaint, but did not rule on the legality of the video postings.
Why this matters
This case highlights potential conflicts of interest within data protection authorities and the challenges of balancing privacy with freedom of expression. It suggests that individuals should be cautious when sharing content that involves others' privacy.
National Law Articles
This case started as a conflict between neighbours. The controller (Y) and the data subject (X) are/were inhabitants of the same neighbourhood. The controller experienced nuisance (soot gas infiltration) because the data subject had amended his home to prevent the backlash of wood smoke. The controller repeatedly emailed the data subject about this, but the data subject did not change his behaviour. Between 22 November 2017 and 15 December 2018, the controller made three video recordings of the wood smoke, and uploaded these videos on YouTube. He also sent the videos to the data subject “to confront him with the intrusions he had caused on the private lives of his neighbours”. On 11/01/2019, the data subject then requested the controller to remove the videos, which Y did not do. On 15/01/2019, however, the controller saw that all of his videos were deleted from YouTube, and several requests of the Belgian DPA to remove certain video recordings. On 14/02/2019, the DPA warned the controller that they could sanction him for posting the videos, and issue high fines. The controller replied that he already removed three videos. However, on 18 April, he was notified that the DPA would investigate the case. However, before the DPA had even issued a legally binding decision, the controller lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal because he challenged the impartiality of the DPA. He claimed, inter alia, that the DPA had put him under pressure with threat of a (large) fine, without having been informed of any substantive complaint. First, the Court considered that the data subject had filed his complaint after he had been advised by staff of the DPA. Moreover, the Court criticised the fact that staff of the DPA can first advise data subjects regarding potential complaints, and later advise the DPA on these complaints in another capacity. However, it also mentioned that it “cannot anticipate and proactively impose on the [DPA] how it should handle administrative dispute
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Belgian DPA (Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit) in BE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Belgian DPA (Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit) - Belgium (2019). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: