Court case 202006960/1/A3 – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2022)
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 Dutch court dismissed a person's appeal against the municipality of Westerveld for not responding to a data access request quickly enough. The court found the person partly responsible for not providing enough identification. This case highlights the need for individuals to provide clear identification when making data requests.
What happened
A person's appeal was dismissed for not providing enough identification in a data access request to the municipality.
Who was affected
The person who submitted the data access request to the municipality of Westerveld.
What the authority found
The court dismissed the appeal, noting the person did not provide sufficient identification, contributing to the delay.
Why this matters
This case underscores the importance of providing clear identification when making data requests. It also shows that procedural rights can be abused if not used properly.
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
The data subject submitted an access request with the municipality of Westerveld (controller). The controller responded that a name and postal address were insufficient to verify his identity and it needed additional information from the data subject. The data subject then wrote the controller that it would file an appeal against the controller for not responding to his request in good time if it did not respond soon. The controller responded that it already did, and re-sent its previous letter. The data subject therefore submitted an appeal with the court for not responding in good time. The Court considered that by not identifying himself, the data subject was partly responsible for the fact that no decision was made. It noted that the data subject did not argue that the controller's request for additional information was unlawful. The Court held that the data subject's appeal constituted an abuse of procedural rights and deemed the appeal non-admissible. The data subject appealed the court's decision at the Council of State. The Council of State heard the case together with three similar appeals from the data subject, namely 202004183/1/A3, 202006929/1/A3 and 202006950/1/A3 (see comments). Both parties were present at the hearing. During the hearing, the data subject argued that he had not abused his procedural rights. Contrary to the court's consideration, he did argue that the controller's request for additional information was unlawful. The data subject stated that the fact that he did not respond to the controller's unlawful request did not make his appeal an abuse of his procedural rights. The Council stated that abuse of procedural rights is only present if a right or power was used so blatantly without reasonable purpose or for a purpose different from that for which they were granted, that the use of those rights or powers shows bad faith.RvS 19 November 2014, ECLI:NL:RVS:2014:4135. A more or less excessive reliance on government offered facilities
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 202006960/1/A3 in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 202006960/1/A3 - Netherlands (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: