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

Court case C/16/526196/ HA RK / 21-01 – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2022)

Court Ruling
DPA RbMidden-Nederland24 August 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 court in the Netherlands ruled on a case involving a person's requests for their personal data from a company. The court found that the individual did not properly identify themselves, which led to delays in processing their requests. This case highlights the importance of clear communication when requesting personal data.

What happened

The court ruled that a person's appeal regarding their personal data requests was not valid due to insufficient identification.

Who was affected

The individual who requested their personal data from the company.

What the authority found

The court decided that the individual was partly responsible for the lack of progress on their requests because they did not provide adequate identification.

Why this matters

This ruling illustrates the need for individuals to understand the identification requirements when requesting personal data. It also emphasizes the importance of clear communication between users and companies.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 6 GDPR
Art. 9 GDPR
Art. 12 GDPR
Art. 15 GDPR
Art. 17 GDPR
Art. 34 GDPR
Art. 82 GDPR
Art. 14(5) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 6(GDPR)
Art. 9(GDPR)
Art. 12(GDPR)
Art. 14(5) GDPR
Art. 15(GDPR)
Art. 17(GDPR)
Art. 34(GDPR)
Art. 82(GDPR)

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

Decision AuthorityRb. Midden-Nederland

Source checks

Secondary-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 18 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 applicant’s marriage to Ms D was converted into a registered partnership, after which the applicant and Ms D entered into a covenant for the termination of the registered partnership and a partial dissolution of the matrimonial community of property. The community of property was successfully dissolved in 2004. In the abovementioned covenant, the applicant and Ms D had agreed to continue their joined ownership of the life insurance policy. In particular, there was first an obligation to share the value with each other upon payment and second Ms D had the obligation to reimburse the applicant annually for the subscription of the insurance. A dispute arose in relation to ASR’s compliance with the GDPR obligations. Hence, the applicant will be referred to as the data subject and ASR will be referred to as data controller. In particular, the data controller informed the data subject of the personal data kept on him by the data controller. However, the data subject believed that this information was inaccurate and incomplete. Therefore, the data subject initiated several procedures against the data controller. The first four requests concern the right to inspection. Precisely, a request for full access of the data subject’s data kept by the data controller, based on article 15 GDPR. Moreover, a request for an overview of the contacts the data controller had with third parties, as well as a list of documents added to the data subject’s file on request of third parties. Finally, the data subject requested a copy of the complete file of his documents from either 2004 or 2016 onwards. With his final three requests, the data subject asked the court to order the data controller to handle the agreement with the data subject in accordance with the GDPR, to delete all personal data of the data subject after proper termination of the agreement and to order a payment of the material and immaterial damages suffered by the improper implementation of the GDPR. First, the Cour

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/16/526196/ HA RK / 21-01 in NL

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

Details

Ruling Date

24 August 2022

Authority

DPA RbMidden-Nederland

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 C/16/526196/ HA RK / 21-01 - Netherlands (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: