Court case C/05/404834 / HA ZA 22-245 – 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.
In a Dutch court case, a business owner requested copies of recorded conversations from a company they were in dispute with. The court ruled that the owner did not prove the company had more recordings than it claimed. This case shows that individuals must provide evidence when requesting data copies under GDPR.
What happened
A business owner requested copies of recorded conversations from a company, claiming a right under GDPR.
Who was affected
The business owner who was involved in recorded conversations with the company.
What the authority found
The court decided the business owner did not provide enough evidence to show the company had more recordings than it admitted, thus rejecting the request for copies.
Why this matters
This ruling clarifies that individuals must substantiate their claims when requesting data copies under GDPR. It emphasizes the importance of evidence in data access requests.
GDPR Articles Cited
The controller advises and guides companies on matters such as brand positioning, corporate identity, business models and revenue models. The data subject had a business that facilitates spaces for retreats, trainings and workshops. The controller believed that the data subject wrongfully failed to pay its invoice, and it claimed payment of the invoice, among other things. The data subject disputed this and refused to pay the additional invoices. Therefore, the controller took the matter to court. To substantiate their defence, the data subject requested the Court to order the controller to provide digital copies of all recordings it made of conversations and (Zoom) video conferences between them, pursuant to article 843a of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) and/or Article 15 GDPR. The data subject stated that during the Zoom-calls, they were notified by an on-screen notification at the beginning of the call that it would be recorded. Concerning the data subject's claim under Article 15 GDPR, the Court noted that the controller stated, with reasons, that a significant portion of the requested recordings could not be provided, because they did not exist. The Court held that it was the data subject's responsibility to assert and provide evidence that the controller actually had these recordings available. The data subject, however, did not provide such evidence. The Court deemed it not plausible that the controller had more recordings at its disposal than it claimed to have, and rejected the claim under Article 15 GDPR on this point. Regarding the residual recordings, the Court pointed out that Article 15(3) GDPR gives the data subject the right to be provided with a copy of the personal data being processed. The Court followed that this right does not automatically entitle a data subject to access a copy or transcript of the original document on which their data is recorded. For example, a data subject is not entitled to the latter, in so far as the objective pursu
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case C/05/404834 / HA ZA 22-245 in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case C/05/404834 / HA ZA 22-245 - Netherlands (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: