Municipality of Amersfoort – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2022)

Data subjects were a group looking for paranormal activities. They visited a cemetery in the municipality of Amersfoort (controller) to conduct a séance, "looking for energies of the deceased". This happened with the permission of the director of the cemetery. The parents of two children who were buried at the cemetery later found out about the séance and requested the data subjects' NAW-data (name, address and residence) from the municipality. They wanted to talk to them directly and possibly hold them liable for the damage they suffered as a result of the séance. The mother stated that it is absolutely not allowed to summon "spirits or devils" at graves in their Islamic culture. As a result of the séance, she claimed to have suffered serious psychological problems. The data subjects did not want their personal data to be disclosed. They had received serious threats because of the incident and felt unsafe. The municipality apologised for the events but stated that it was not obliged to disclose the personal data to the parents. It did offer to facilitate a conversation between the parties, during which the data subjects would remain anonymous, but the parents declined the offer. The parents were of the opinion that the municipality was acting unlawfully by not providing the personal data, so they brought the case before the court. The District Court of Midden-Nederland (Rechtbank Midden-Nederland - Rb. Midden-Nederland) heard the case. The Court stated that the data subject's did not consent to the disclosure of their personal data and this does not fit with the purpose for which the data was initially processed. It must therefore be tested against Article 6(1)(f) and (4) GDPR. The Court noted that (1) there must be legitimate interest, (2) the disclosure must be necessary and (3) it had to balance the interests of both parties: the right to protection of personal data and the safety of the research group and the right to information and effective legal protection of the parents. Initially, the Court found that the parents had a legitimate interest to access the personal data of, at least, the representative of the paranormal group. Then they could learn more about what exactly happened at the graves of their children and get answers to the questions they still had. The Court also held that the condition of necessity had been met. However, the Court held that the safety aspect weighed heavily. The mayor had also received threats, after which a conviction followed. Although the interests of the parents were important, they did not outweigh the interests of the data subjects. Moreover, the alternatives to get answers have not yet been exhausted by the parents. They even turned down previous proposals from the municipality. The data subjects did not want a personal conversation with the parents, and such a conversation cannot be forced. Lastly, the Court stated that it's doubtful whether the data subjects acted unlawfully towards the parents. Therefore, it was not proportional to take an irreversible decision like the provision of personal data. Ultimately, the Court held that the municipality was not obliged to provide the name and address details of the data subjects and denied the parents' request.