- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Netherlands · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case LEE 22/1758 – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2022)
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 Dutch court ruled on a case where a person wanted to know why they were included in a fraud identification system. The court decided that the person did not provide enough evidence to prove there was more information about them. This case shows the challenges individuals face when trying to access their personal data.
What happened
A person appealed a decision regarding their inclusion in a fraud identification system, seeking more information.
Who was affected
A person who was included in the Fraud Identification Facility by the Dutch Ministry of Finance.
What the authority found
The court ruled that the person did not demonstrate the existence of additional personal data beyond what was provided in the access request.
Why this matters
This ruling illustrates the difficulties individuals may encounter when trying to access their personal data. It serves as a reminder for businesses to maintain clear records and be prepared to respond to access requests.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Secondary-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 18 March 2026.
No issues were reported by that automated check.
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
A data subject received a letter from the Dutch Ministry of Finance (controller) stating that they (the data subject) had been included in the Fraud Identification Facility (FSV), a filing system used by the controller. In the letter the controller elaborated further that the FVS did no longer exist and informed the data subject of the possibility to access their data as well as the possibility of them having suffered damages due to inclusion in the FSV. The data subject filed an access request with the FSV. On 19 October 2022 the controller answered to the data subject’s request, providing an overview of all their personal data contained in the FSV in accordance with Article 15 GDPR. The data subject considered this answer as incomplete and appealed this decision stating that they want to know the reason for being included in the FSV as well as that they have suffered damages from being wrongly included. In its defence, the controller stated that the platform did no longer exist, it was therefore not possible to find out how the information ended up in the system. The court held that the data subject had to prove the existence of further information than what was included in the answer to the access request. In this case, the data subject did not sufficiently demonstrated the existence of further personal data than provided by the controller. The court found the appeal to be unfounded.
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case LEE 22/1758 in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case LEE 22/1758 - Netherlands (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: