Servicekosten Consultancy V.O.F. – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2024)

Court Ruling
DPA RbAmsterdam30 April 2024Netherlands
final
Court Ruling

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 data subject had a business credit card issued by the controller. In 2021, the controller asked the data subject to identify themselves online by taking a picture of the ID and then taking a selfie of themselves. The data subject wanted to upload a copy of the ID with a watermark on it for fraud prevention purposes (saying, for example: “copy for [the controller]”). The controller, on the other hand, rejected this copy, arguing that the data subject should upload a copy without any writing on it. Therefore, the data subject brought legal proceedings before the District Court of Amsterdam (Rechtbank Amsterdam - Rb. Amsterdam), seeking the court to declare that the controller cannot request an ID copy without the watermark and that the controller should not block the credit card. On 20 April 2022, the District Court of Amsterdam dismissed the data subject’s request. The data subject appealed the decision before the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam (Gerechtshof Amsterdam - GHAMS). They argued that the provisions of the [https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0024282/2022-11-01 Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act (Wet ter voorkoming van witwassen en financieren van terrorisme – Wwft)] do not require that the identification process is performed in the way envisaged by the controller. Therefore, the legal basis provided for by Article 6(1)(c) GDPR cannot be used, since there is no legal obligation to require this kind of identification. Moreover, they argued that the controller should not store the copy of the ID. The controller pointed out that the electronic technique used in the scanning of the ID has currently the highest reliability in the field of authentication and that the use of this technique enables it to recognize high value forgeries of IDs better than with the use of persons trained and educated for this purpose. First of all, the court noted that the Wwft does not prescribe a way in which the identification should be conducted. Moreover, it po

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 6(1)(c) GDPR

National Law Articles

Artikel 33(1) Wet ter voorkoming van witwassen en financieren van terrorisme
Decision AuthorityGHAMS
Reviewed AuthorityRb. Amsterdam (Netherlands)‎
Full Legal Summary

The data subject had a business credit card issued by the controller. In 2021, the controller asked the data subject to identify themselves online by taking a picture of the ID and then taking a selfie of themselves. The data subject wanted to upload a copy of the ID with a watermark on it for fraud prevention purposes (saying, for example: “copy for [the controller]”). The controller, on the other hand, rejected this copy, arguing that the data subject should upload a copy without any writing on it. Therefore, the data subject brought legal proceedings before the District Court of Amsterdam (Rechtbank Amsterdam - Rb. Amsterdam), seeking the court to declare that the controller cannot request an ID copy without the watermark and that the controller should not block the credit card. On 20 April 2022, the District Court of Amsterdam dismissed the data subject’s request. The data subject appealed the decision before the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam (Gerechtshof Amsterdam - GHAMS). They argued that the provisions of the [https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0024282/2022-11-01 Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act (Wet ter voorkoming van witwassen en financieren van terrorisme – Wwft)] do not require that the identification process is performed in the way envisaged by the controller. Therefore, the legal basis provided for by Article 6(1)(c) GDPR cannot be used, since there is no legal obligation to require this kind of identification. Moreover, they argued that the controller should not store the copy of the ID. The controller pointed out that the electronic technique used in the scanning of the ID has currently the highest reliability in the field of authentication and that the use of this technique enables it to recognize high value forgeries of IDs better than with the use of persons trained and educated for this purpose. First of all, the court noted that the Wwft does not prescribe a way in which the identification should be conducted. Moreover, it po

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Servicekosten Consultancy V.O.F. in NL

This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Ruling Date

30 April 2024

Authority

DPA RbAmsterdam

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
AI-verified and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Servicekosten Consultancy V.O.F. - Netherlands (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: