Court case 2022/AR/556 – Court Ruling (Belgium, 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 Belgian court reviewed a case where Charleroi Airport was fined for using thermal cameras without a clear legal basis. The airport argued that the Belgian DPA was biased and misused its power. This case is important because it highlights the need for clear guidance from authorities on privacy practices.
What happened
Charleroi Airport challenged a fine for using thermal cameras without a legal basis, citing bias and misuse of power by the Belgian DPA.
Who was affected
Passengers and visitors at Charleroi Airport who were subject to temperature checks using thermal cameras.
What the authority found
The court reviewed the airport's appeal against the Belgian DPA's decision, focusing on claims of bias and procedural issues.
Why this matters
This case underscores the importance of transparency and fairness in regulatory enforcement. It also highlights the need for clear communication from authorities to help organizations comply with privacy laws.
GDPR Articles Cited
On 4 April 2022, the Belgian DPA issued [https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/publications/beslissing-ten-gronde-nr.-47-2022.pdf decision 47/2022], in which it fined Charleroi Airport €100,000 for the use of thermal cameras and temperature checks for COVID-19 detection purposes. The DPA held that the controller lacked a lawful ground for processing these special category data, see the [https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=APD/GBA_(Belgium)_-_47/2022 GDPRhub summary]. The controller appealed this decision with the Market Court. The controller questioned the impartiality of the DPA by referring to several reports in the national press. These reports showed an appearance of partiality, according to the controller, which was enough to call the decisions of the DPA into question. The nature of these news reports were not specified in the ruling. The controller further argued that the DPA had misued its powers. According to the controller, the DPA had stated multiple times in the press that the controller did not have a legal basis for its use of thermal cameras. However, the DPA did not issue any opinion of give recommendations to the controller so that it could improve its processing. The controller stated that it would have followed the instructions of the DPA if the DPA had taken a clear position regarding the legality of the controller's processing. The controller had also requested the anonymization of the decision. Despite this, the decision was published alongside a press report. According to the controller, the choice to publish a non-anonymised decision and to publish press report alongside it constituted a misuse of power by the DPA. The controller also stated that the DPA had misued its powers with regard to the determination of the fine. The controller also argued that the DPA did not properly apply the criteria described in Article 83 GDPR for determining the fine and had not consulted the EDPB Guidelines regarding Article 83 GDPR ([htt
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 2022/AR/556 in BE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 2022/AR/556 - Belgium (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: