Enforcing jurisdiction
Netherlands · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation

Court case 200.292.660/01 – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2022)

Court Ruling
DPA GHAMS25 October 2022Netherlands
final
Court Ruling

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 Dutch court ruled that a media company could publish articles about a person without violating privacy laws. The court decided that the company's right to inform the public outweighed the individual's privacy concerns.

What happened

The court dismissed a person's claims against a media company for publishing articles that included personal information about them.

Who was affected

The individual whose personal information was published in the articles.

What the authority found

The court held that the media company processed personal data for journalistic purposes, which was protected under freedom of expression.

Why this matters

This ruling emphasizes the balance between freedom of expression and privacy rights, indicating that media companies can publish information if it serves the public interest.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

National Law Articles
AI-identified
Article 43 UAVG
Decision AuthorityGHAMS

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 17 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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

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

Ruling Date

25 October 2022

Authority

DPA GHAMS

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 200.292.660/01 - Netherlands (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: