ELQ Portefeuille I B.V. – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2022)

Court Ruling
DPA RbAmsterdam18 August 2022Netherlands
final
Court Ruling

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 ruled that a man's name should stay on a credit registry despite his request to remove it after his debt was cleared. This is important because it shows how credit registries balance protecting lenders and borrowers' rights.

What happened

A court decided not to remove a man's name from a credit registry even after his debt was discharged.

Who was affected

A man who had his name listed in a credit registry due to a past mortgage debt.

What the authority found

The court ruled that the man's name should remain in the credit registry, as the registry's purpose of protecting against excessive lending outweighed his request for removal.

Why this matters

This case illustrates the balance courts seek between individual rights and the interests of financial institutions. It emphasizes the importance of understanding how credit registries operate and their impact on future borrowing.

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 17(1) GDPR
Art. 21(1) GDPR
Decision AuthorityRb. Amsterdam
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The data subject owned a house with his ex-wife that was financed with a mortgage from the controller. After the divorce, the data subject sold the house and retained a residual debt of €61,502.89. The data subject then became depressed and was unable to work. In 2013 and 2014, he received a reduced income under the Dutch Sickness and Benefits Act. Following debt mediation, the data subject repaid €12,224.96 over three years. The controller wrote off the remaining €49,354.75, and the debt was discharged on October 5th, 2021. On June 8th, 2022, the data subject was once again employed and with his current partner, he signed a purchase agreement for a new house. The couple had until 5 September 2022 to come up with the necessary funds to complete the purchase, but they were denied a mortgage because the data subject's previous debt with the controller was still registered in a credit registry. On 4 July 2022, the data subject requested the controller to remove his name from the credit registry so that he could obtain a new mortgage. On 12 July 2022, the controller rejected the data subject's request. The data subject then filed a claim at the District Court of Amsterdam requesting that it to order the controller to remove his name from the credit registry. The legal basis for processing the data subject's personal data was Article 6(1)(f) GDPR: a credit registry protects the legitimate interests of consumers against excessive lending and protects lenders against borrowers who cannot or will not repay their loans. The Court took no issue with this legal basis, and the data subject did not dispute these legitimate interests. That being said, the data subject still had the right to object to processing under Article 21 GDPR and have his personal data deleted from the registry under Article 17 GDPR so long as these legitimate interests did not override his right to erasure. Weighing these interests, the Court considered that the data subject ran into financial problems

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for ELQ Portefeuille I B.V. in NL

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

Details

Ruling Date

18 August 2022

Authority

DPA RbAmsterdam

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
AI-verified and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. ELQ Portefeuille I B.V. - Netherlands (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: