Council for Child Protection – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2025)
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 submitted a request to the Minister for Legal Protection (now: the State Secretary for Justice and Security) to erase the files of her two sons held by the controller, the Child Protection Council (RvdK), pursuant to Article 17 GDPR. The files contained documents regarding the termination of her parental rights to both her children. On 15 September 2021, the Minister rejected the erasure request, arguing that the records should be retained under the Dutch Archives Act, and on 14 February 2022, he rejected the objection lodged against it. The data subject filed an appeal before the court of first instance against the decision of the Minister. By judgment dated 22 December 2022, the court dismissed it as unfounded. It held that the processing of the data subject’s children’s personal data was necessary for the fulfillment of a statutory processing obligation pursuant to Article 17(3)(b) GDPR. The data subject filed an appeal before the highest administrative court (Council of State-Raad van State). She argued that since the custody termination order for her youngest son had been lifted the files must be deleted because their content was incorrect and therefore unlawful. She further argued that the measure of custody termination for the eldest son should also be lifted because it was based on the unlawful RvdK files. The court held that the data subject did not present any reasons why the processing of the personal data was unlawful, nor has there been any such evidence. She is therefore not entitled to the erasure of the personal data in the RvdK files under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR. It also pointed out that these proceedings could not lead to a judgment on the measure to terminate custody. The court also ruled that RvdK was obliged by statutory law to retain the contested personal data in the files for the envisaged time period, according to the Dutch Archives Act. In the case of a custody order the time period would be 100 years. This means that,
GDPR Articles Cited
The data subject submitted a request to the Minister for Legal Protection (now: the State Secretary for Justice and Security) to erase the files of her two sons held by the controller, the Child Protection Council (RvdK), pursuant to Article 17 GDPR. The files contained documents regarding the termination of her parental rights to both her children. On 15 September 2021, the Minister rejected the erasure request, arguing that the records should be retained under the Dutch Archives Act, and on 14 February 2022, he rejected the objection lodged against it. The data subject filed an appeal before the court of first instance against the decision of the Minister. By judgment dated 22 December 2022, the court dismissed it as unfounded. It held that the processing of the data subject’s children’s personal data was necessary for the fulfillment of a statutory processing obligation pursuant to Article 17(3)(b) GDPR. The data subject filed an appeal before the highest administrative court (Council of State-Raad van State). She argued that since the custody termination order for her youngest son had been lifted the files must be deleted because their content was incorrect and therefore unlawful. She further argued that the measure of custody termination for the eldest son should also be lifted because it was based on the unlawful RvdK files. The court held that the data subject did not present any reasons why the processing of the personal data was unlawful, nor has there been any such evidence. She is therefore not entitled to the erasure of the personal data in the RvdK files under Article 17(1)(d) GDPR. It also pointed out that these proceedings could not lead to a judgment on the measure to terminate custody. The court also ruled that RvdK was obliged by statutory law to retain the contested personal data in the files for the envisaged time period, according to the Dutch Archives Act. In the case of a custody order the time period would be 100 years. This means that,
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Council for Child Protection in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Council for Child Protection - Netherlands (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: