- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Netherlands · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case 22/01253 – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2022)
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 patient tried to access her medical assessment but was denied by the doctor who reviewed her treatment. The Central Medical Disciplinary Tribunal ruled that the hospital had the right to keep the assessment confidential during the legal process. This case illustrates the balance between patient rights and medical confidentiality.
What happened
The Central Medical Disciplinary Tribunal upheld a decision denying a patient access to a medical assessment related to her treatment.
Who was affected
The patient whose medical assessment was reviewed by a doctor from another hospital.
What the authority found
The tribunal decided that the patient could not access the assessment due to the nature of the legal relationship with the hospital.
Why this matters
This case highlights the complexities of patient rights in legal contexts. It serves as a reminder for healthcare providers to navigate confidentiality carefully while addressing patient concerns.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Secondary-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 21 March 2026.
Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified, 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
A patient (the data subject) was treated in a hospital. Because she believed that an error had been made, she held the hospital liable. The hospital involved its liability insurer. On behalf of this liability insurer, a doctor from another hospital assessed the data subject's medical file. He checked whether the treatment had been carried out correctly. This doctor did not see the data subject nor was she involved in the investigation in any other way. The data subject found out that this other doctor had made an assessment of the treatment and tried to get access to the findings. The doctor who made the assessment refused her access. The data subject then filed a disciplinary complaint against this doctor with the Regional Medical Disciplinary Tribunal. The Regional Tribunal declared the complaint unfounded. The data subject appealed against this decision to the Central Medical Disciplinary Tribunal. The data subject argued that she should get access to the medical assessment based on the inspection rights from the Medical Treatment Contracts Act (MTCA) laid down in the Dutch Civil Code (article 7:456 BW). However, the Central Tribunal held that the data subject could not appeal to these rights, as an exception in the MTCA was applicable (article 7:464 BW). According to the Central Tribunal, the nature of the legal relationship (the trial) between the data subject and the hospital opposed this. It explained that the hospital had the right to prepare their defence against the data subject's liability claim 'in freedom and seclusion'. In that context, they must also be able to call in another doctor to assess the course of treatment, without the data subject being able to inspect the findings. The Central Tribunal therefore held that there was no obligation to make the medical assessment available to the data subject and declared the complaint unfounded. As a rule, decisions of the Central Tribunal cannot be appealed. However, cassation is possible if it is in the
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 22/01253 in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Ruling Date
26 August 2022
Authority
DPA CentraalTuchtcollege
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 22/01253 - Netherlands (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: