Court case 2022/AR/560 & 2022/AR/564 – Court Ruling (Belgium, 2023)
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.
The Belgian Market Court reviewed fines against Brussels Airport and Ambuce Rescue Team for using thermal cameras without proper legal grounds. The court examined claims of bias and misuse of power by the Belgian DPA. This case shows the importance of having clear legal grounds for processing personal data, especially in health-related situations.
What happened
Brussels Airport and Ambuce Rescue Team were fined for using thermal cameras for COVID-19 checks without a lawful basis.
Who was affected
Passengers at Brussels Airport who were subjected to temperature checks using thermal cameras.
What the authority found
The Belgian Market Court reviewed the fines and considered claims of bias and misuse of power by the Belgian DPA.
Why this matters
This case highlights the necessity for clear legal justifications when processing personal data, particularly in health-related contexts. Organizations should ensure compliance with data protection laws to avoid similar disputes.
On 4 April 2022, the Belgian DPA issued [https://www.autoriteprotectiondonnees.be/publications/decision-quant-au-fond-n-48-2022.pdf decision 48/2022], in which it fined Brussels Airport €200,000 for the use of thermal cameras and temperature checks for COVID-19 detection purposes. It also fined the Ambuce Rescue Team €20,000 for carrying out a second test (second-line control) for passengers at Brussels Airport with a temperature of 38°C or higher. The DPA held these controllers lacked a lawful ground for processing these special personal data. For more information on this decision, see the [https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=APD/GBA_(Belgium)_-_48/2022 GDPRhub summary]. Ambuce and the Airport both appealed this decision with the Market Court, where they were jointly decided. Both parties questioned the impartiality of the DPA, because one of its members was also the ‘program director’ at a non-profit focused on digital data protection (NOYB). This was supposedly incompatible with his mandate as a member of the Dispute Chamber of the DPA and in violation with Articles 52(1) and 52(2) GDPR and Article 44(1) WOG. Ambuce and the Airport also questioned their qualification as joint controllers as far as the second-line control was concerned. Lastly, they argued that the fines imposed on them were not adequately justified. Brussels Airport further argued that the DPA misused its power. According to the Airport, the purpose of the contested decision was to set an example and to denounce the practice of not consulting the DPA in any legislative initiative. In addition, the DPA allegedly breached the principles of reasoning and due care. Further, Ambuce stated that the publication of the press release of 17 June 2020 infringed Article 54(2) GDPR and Article 48(1) and Article 64(3) WOG. This press release described that the DPA was 'worried' about the installation of these thermal camera's. In addition, Ambuce held that it's rights of defence and article 92(3) WOG were n
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/560 & 2022/AR/564 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/560 & 2022/AR/564 - Belgium (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: