Enforcing jurisdiction
Netherlands · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation
No confirmed legal basis recorded.
Privacy topics

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

Court Ruling
DPA RbAmsterdam24 March 2022Netherlands
final
Court Ruling

Privacy enforcement record

This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

A Dutch court denied a person's request to remove their credit registration, which was affecting their ability to get a mortgage. The court found that it was too early to remove the registration since it had only been a year since the debt was repaid. This case shows that courts consider both individual and social interests when deciding on such requests.

What happened

The Dutch court refused a request for an interim injunction to delete a credit registration.

Who was affected

The individual who requested the deletion of their credit registration and the Credit Bank that maintained the record.

What the authority found

The court ruled that the individual's interest in removing the credit registration did not outweigh the social interest in maintaining it, especially since the debt was repaid only recently.

Why this matters

This case illustrates the balancing act courts perform between personal interests and broader societal needs. Individuals seeking to remove credit records should be aware that their requests will be weighed against the public interest.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 17 GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 17(GDPR)

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

National Law Articles
AI-identified
Article 34 General Data Protection Regulation Implementation Act (UAVG)
Decision AuthorityRb. Amsterdam

Source checks

Secondary-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 18 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified.

Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources

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
Automatically normalized and classified

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

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: