- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Belgium · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- No confirmed legal basis recorded.
- Privacy topics
Court case 2022/AR/560 & 2022/AR/564 – Court Ruling (Belgium, 2023)
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 Brussels Airport and the Ambuce Rescue Team regarding fines imposed for using thermal cameras during COVID-19. The court found that both parties lacked a lawful basis for processing sensitive health data. This decision highlights the importance of having a valid legal ground for data processing, especially in health-related situations.
What happened
The court addressed an appeal against fines for using thermal cameras and temperature checks at Brussels Airport.
Who was affected
Passengers at Brussels Airport whose temperatures were checked using thermal cameras were affected.
What the authority found
The court ruled that the use of thermal cameras violated data protection rules due to the lack of a lawful ground for processing sensitive data.
Why this matters
This ruling emphasizes that companies must ensure they have a valid legal basis for processing sensitive health data. It serves as a reminder for businesses to review their data processing practices, especially in health-related contexts.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Review needed — 21 March 2026.
Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified, entity split needed.
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
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
Ruling Date
7 January 2023
Authority
Autorité de Protection des Données
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 2022/AR/560 & 2022/AR/564 - Belgium (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: