Minister van Financiën – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2023)

On 20 April 2020, the data subject exercised his right of access and information under Article 15 GDPR by sending a request to the Minister of Finance. He was asking more specifically whether his data were processed in the fraud alert system "Fraude Signalering Voorziening" (FSV) and/or other undisclosed databases. In the affirmative, he requested a copy of such data. The Minister stated in his answer that no personal data could be found in the FVS. The data subject considered this answer insufficient and asked the Minister to reconsider its position. He claimed that the Minister could not limit the data search to FVS alone, but also had to consult all other systems in response to his request. He didn't refer to specific system, arguing that he could not be aware about their names or even existence, some of which possibly being secret or undisclosed to the public. In this respect, he refered to a report by KPMG mentioning a possible existence of non identified systems used by the tax authorities. In addition, the data subject claimed that the Minister did not provide sufficient information regarding the search method used. The Minister refused to give further information. As a consequence, the data subject lodged an action with the District Court of Amsterdam, which declared the appeal unfounded. He therefore appealed before the Council of State against the decision of the District Court of Amsterdam The Council stated that the report of KMPG, which mentions possible systems that have not been identified, does not imply that it is plausible that there are other systems whose existence is kept secret by the tax authorities and the Ministry. Next, the Council of State confirmed that in his answer to the request of access and information the Minister has provided sufficient insight into how he searched for personal data and indicated that other search methods would have led to a similar result. For the above reasons, the Council of State declared the appeal unfounded and upheld the contested decision.