Court case 200.292.660/01 – 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 ruled that a website could publish articles about a person accused of fraud because it was for journalistic purposes. This matters because it balances freedom of expression with privacy rights.
What happened
The court ruled that publishing articles about a person accused of fraud was allowed for journalistic purposes.
Who was affected
The individual named in the articles, who was referred to as a swindler and involved in fraudulent activities.
What the authority found
The Court of Appeal of Amsterdam found the website's publications were protected under the journalistic exception, prioritizing freedom of expression over privacy concerns.
Why this matters
This ruling underscores the protection of journalistic activities under privacy laws, emphasizing the role of the press in informing the public about fraud. It highlights the need for a balance between privacy and freedom of expression.
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
The controller carried out activities in the field of media. Via its website, it published articles, that were also sometimes published in national newspapers. Among these articles was a 28-page file about the data subject. One article referred to the data subject as a master swindler. Another article stated that the data subject sold phone cards to detainees and scammed them. The publications included the data subject's full name, date of birth and a photograph. The data subject deemed these publications unlawful pursuant to the GDPR and Article 8 ECHR and took the matter to court. The data subject claimed that the controller was liable for €40,000 in damages and also requested a ban on any future publications about him. The Court of First Instance dismissed the claims. It considered that the controller processed the personal data for journalistic purposes and that in this case, the freedom of expression of the controller outweighed the protection of the data subject's privacy. The Court noted that the press has a watchdog function, in particular with regard to fraud and the importance of warning the public about it. The data subject appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance. He opposed the Court's finding that the controller processed personal data for journalistic purposes on its website. According to the data subject, the controller's purpose was to make people look bad and that the controller acted out of spite. The controller had no legal ground for processing pursuant to Article 6 GDPR. Therefore, the journalistic exception laid down in Article 43 of the Dutch Implementation Act for the GDPR (UAVG) was not applicable. The Court of Appeal of Amsterdam stated, firstly, that the term 'journalistic' within the meaning of Article 43 UAVG should be interpreted broadly. The Court found that controller's website aimed to inform the public about fraudulent activities. The data subject's statement that the controller's purpose was to make people look bad
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 200.292.660/01 in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 200.292.660/01 - Netherlands (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: