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

Court case 2022/AR/556 – Court Ruling (Belgium, 2022)

Court Ruling
Autorité de Protection des Données7 December 2022Belgium
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 Belgian court ruled on an appeal from Charleroi Airport regarding the use of thermal cameras for COVID-19 checks. The airport argued that the Data Protection Authority was biased and did not provide clear guidance. This case illustrates the challenges companies face in balancing health measures with data protection laws.

What happened

Charleroi Airport appealed a fine related to its use of thermal cameras without a lawful basis.

Who was affected

Passengers and staff at Charleroi Airport who were subjected to thermal checks.

What the authority found

The Court of Appeal of Brussels reviewed the appeal but did not issue a new ruling on the original fine imposed by the Data Protection Authority.

Why this matters

This case shows the complexities of using health-related data during emergencies. Companies must navigate legal requirements carefully to avoid penalties while ensuring public safety.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 5(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(b) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 6(3) GDPR
Art. 9(2)(i) GDPR
Art. 12(1) GDPR
Art. 13(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 13(2)(a) GDPR
Art. 13(2)(d) GDPR
Art. 13(2)(e) GDPR
Art. 30(1) GDPR
Art. 30(1)(d) GDPR
Art. 35(1) GDPR
Art. 35(7) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 5(1)(b) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 6(3) GDPR
Art. 9(2)(i) GDPR
Art. 12(1) GDPR
Art. 13(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 13(2)(a) GDPR
Art. 13(2)(d) GDPR
Art. 13(2)(e) GDPR
Art. 30(1) GDPR
Art. 30(1)(d) GDPR
Art. 35(1) GDPR
Art. 35(7) GDPR

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

Decision AuthorityCourt of Appeal of Brussels (Belgium)
Reviewed AuthorityAPD/GBA (Belgium)

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 18 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, 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

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

Ruling Date

7 December 2022

Authority

Autorité de Protection des Données

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 2022/AR/556 - Belgium (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: