Rotterdam Municipal Board – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2022)

The plaintiff, in search of employment, participated in a reintegration program managed by the Board. Believing the program was providing insufficient assistance, they requested access and further rectification to all the personal data related to 'monitoring', 'logging', 'control', and 'detection' for the period from January 6, 2017, to January 6, 2018. While providing the documents in their possession, The Board stated they do not have any data in relation to the access request and further rejected the request for rectification on 7 July 2021, citing that they are not obliged to rectify professional opinions and impressions. The plaintiff objected to the rejection of their requests, which the Board declared inadmissible and partly unfounded on 18 February 2022 through a decision. In the case at hand, the plaintiff appealed the aforementioned decision. Access to Data (Article 15 GDPR): The court held that the board conducted a reasonable search and provided all available documents. The mere suspicion of additional data was not sufficient to prove they existed, and the burden of proof of such documents lied with the plaintiff. Right to Rectification (Article 16 GDPR): The court agreed with the board that professional opinions, impressions, and conclusions are not subject to rectification. The data the plaintiff wanted to rectify fell into this category and could not be altered. Procedural Conduct: The court found that any delay in the board's decision-making was reasonable under the circumstances and in accordance with existing procedural law and cases. Conclusion: The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, ruling that the board had complied with its obligations under the GDPR. The plaintiff was not entitled to further data access, rectification, or compensation. Thus, the court rejected the claims for damages, including those based on alleged violations of the GDPR and delays in the procedure. The court also declined to refer preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, stating it was unnecessary for resolving the case.