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

Court case 2021/2476/A – Court Ruling (Belgium, 2022)

Court Ruling
DPA CFI27 May 2022Belgium
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 Belgian court ruled that the DPA failed to handle a complaint in a timely manner regarding a person's ex-wife posting pictures of their son on Facebook. The court found that the DPA did not provide adequate communication or respond promptly. This case underscores the importance of timely responses in data protection matters.

What happened

The court found that the Belgian DPA did not manage a complaint properly and lacked diligence.

Who was affected

Mr. X, who filed a complaint about his ex-wife posting pictures of his son online.

What the authority found

The court determined that the Belgian DPA did not act with sufficient diligence in handling the complaint.

Why this matters

This ruling emphasizes the need for data protection authorities to respond promptly and effectively to complaints. It serves as a reminder for DPA's to maintain clear communication with individuals filing complaints.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 77 GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 77(GDPR)

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

National Law Articles
AI-identified
1382 Civil code
1382 code civil
Decision AuthorityCFI

Source checks

Secondary-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 18 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, authority corrected.

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

Mr X had filed a complaint with the Belgian DPA because his ex-wife was posting pictures of his son on Facebook. The litigation Chamber closed the case. The litigation Chamber further suggested the complainant to request a mediation to a dedicated service within the DPA, in order to reach an amicable settlement witht he other party. The complainant started the procedure on 30 December 2019 and only received an answer from the DPA on 18 May 2020. After several reminders, on 1 October 2020, the DPA informed the complainant that the mediation did not succeed. The complainant sued the DPA for damages before the Brussels court for not dealing with his case in a timely manner and with the appropriate care. The Tribunal held that the Belgian DPA lacked diligence on the following grounds. First, no explanation was given to the complainant on the different steps undertaken to handle the complaint, despite the numerous reminders sent by the complainant. Second, no response was provided despite the DPA having committed to do so before 15 August 2020. Third, not having handled the case within a reasonable period of time. The DPA was ordered to pay a symbolic amount of 1 euro to the complainant, since no further damage could be demonstrated by the complainant as a consequence of the lack of diligence.

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 2021/2476/A in BE

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

Details

Ruling Date

27 May 2022

Authority

DPA CFI

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 2021/2476/A - Belgium (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: