Court case AMS 22/1414 – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2022)

Court Ruling
DPA RbAmsterdam24 March 2022Netherlands
final
Court Ruling

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 Amsterdam decided not to remove a man's credit record, even though it was stopping him from getting a mortgage. The court said it was too soon to erase the record since the man had only recently paid off his debt. This decision shows that credit records may not be removed quickly, even if they affect personal plans like buying a house.

What happened

A man's request to delete his credit record was denied by the Amsterdam court.

Who was affected

The man whose credit record was stopping him from securing a mortgage.

What the authority found

The court decided it was too early to remove the credit record, as it was only a year since the debt was repaid.

Why this matters

This case highlights that credit records might not be removed immediately after debts are paid, affecting personal financial plans. It underscores the importance of understanding how long credit records can impact financial decisions.

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 17 GDPR

National Law Articles

Article 34 General Data Protection Regulation Implementation Act (UAVG)
Decision AuthorityRb. Amsterdam
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The data subject requested that his credit registration be deleted by the Credit Bank. Because the Credit Bank declined, the data subject asked the preliminary relief judge at Rb. Amsterdam for an interim injunction. He did so particularly because this registration formed an obstacle in obtaining a mortgage and his reservation period for the purchase of a house was to expire soon. The data subject and his partner wanted to purchase a house especially in light of the birth of their child. Rb. Amsterdam refused the request for an interim injunction with regard to the removal of the data subject's record in the credit register under Article 34 of the UAVG. The deletion of a credit register is preceded by a weighing of interests in which the individual interest of the applicant in the removal of the credit registration is weighed up against the social interest in maintaining this registration. The outcome of this balancing of interests was that it was still too early to state that the registration was disproportionate just one year after the debt had been repaid. The preliminary relief judge also took other circumstances of the case into account, such as the data subject's fault in incurring his debts and the fact that he had only recently become financially stable. The court also noted that the measure requested by the data subject is not really an interim injunction. The consequences would be irreversible because he would secure a mortgage as a result. However, despite the refusal to issue an interim injunction at this moment, the court pointed out that it does not necessarily mean that the data subject's record should stay in place for another four years.

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case AMS 22/1414 in NL

This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Ruling Date

24 March 2022

Authority

DPA RbAmsterdam

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
AI-verified and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case AMS 22/1414 - Netherlands (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: