Autorité de protection des données – Court Ruling (Belgium, 2024)
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, a Flemish-speaking Belgian citizen, advanced a complaint, in Flemish, with the Belgian DPA against the controller. The complaint was declared admissible by the DPA and, on 8 December 2022, the parties were informed of the advancement of proceedings, mentioning, in Flemish, the possibility of changing the language of proceedings. Thus, the data subject asked, in Flemish, to change the language of procedure to French, as her lawyer, substituting her previous Flemish-speaking lawyer, was Francophone. The Investigation Chamber of the DPA accepted this request. The controller appealed against this decision of the Investigation Chamber which, in turn, retreated the decision on the merits, but upheld the change of language from Flemish to French. The controller introduced an appeal against this last decision before the Market Court (a bilingual section of the court of appeal) in Brussels, who, in turn, referred two questions for review to the Constitutional Court: 1. Is [https://etaamb.openjustice.be/fr/loi-du-03-decembre-2017_n2017031916.html Article 57 of the law of 3 December 2017] (on the establishment of the DPA), compatible with [http://www.parliament.am/library/parlamentarizm2019/belgia.pdf Article 30 of the Constitution], in that it leaves the DPA itself responsible for determining the use of languages in the procedures carried out before it? 2. Is [https://etaamb.openjustice.be/fr/loi-du-03-decembre-2017_n2017031916.html Article 57 of the law of 3 December 2017], compatible with [http://www.parliament.am/library/parlamentarizm2019/belgia.pdf Articles 10, 11 and 30 of the Constitution], in that it does give rise to a difference in treatment between the people concerned by an administrative procedure before the DPA and the persons concerned by an administrative procedure before the Competition Authority? With Article 30 of the Constitution stating that “the use of languages spoken in Belgium is optional; only the law can rule on this matter, and o
National Law Articles
The data subject, a Flemish-speaking Belgian citizen, advanced a complaint, in Flemish, with the Belgian DPA against the controller. The complaint was declared admissible by the DPA and, on 8 December 2022, the parties were informed of the advancement of proceedings, mentioning, in Flemish, the possibility of changing the language of proceedings. Thus, the data subject asked, in Flemish, to change the language of procedure to French, as her lawyer, substituting her previous Flemish-speaking lawyer, was Francophone. The Investigation Chamber of the DPA accepted this request. The controller appealed against this decision of the Investigation Chamber which, in turn, retreated the decision on the merits, but upheld the change of language from Flemish to French. The controller introduced an appeal against this last decision before the Market Court (a bilingual section of the court of appeal) in Brussels, who, in turn, referred two questions for review to the Constitutional Court: 1. Is [https://etaamb.openjustice.be/fr/loi-du-03-decembre-2017_n2017031916.html Article 57 of the law of 3 December 2017] (on the establishment of the DPA), compatible with [http://www.parliament.am/library/parlamentarizm2019/belgia.pdf Article 30 of the Constitution], in that it leaves the DPA itself responsible for determining the use of languages in the procedures carried out before it? 2. Is [https://etaamb.openjustice.be/fr/loi-du-03-decembre-2017_n2017031916.html Article 57 of the law of 3 December 2017], compatible with [http://www.parliament.am/library/parlamentarizm2019/belgia.pdf Articles 10, 11 and 30 of the Constitution], in that it does give rise to a difference in treatment between the people concerned by an administrative procedure before the DPA and the persons concerned by an administrative procedure before the Competition Authority? With Article 30 of the Constitution stating that “the use of languages spoken in Belgium is optional; only the law can rule on this matter, and o
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Autorité de protection des données in BE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Autorité de protection des données - Belgium (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: