Data subject versus College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Amersfoort (the municipal executive board of Amersfoort) – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2025)

The data subject was placed in the persoonsgerichte aanpak (PGA), a local multi-agency intervention programme in Amersfoort aimed at tackling repeated public disorder and safety issues. The police had referred him in December 2022 following multiple complaints of nuisance and repeated negative encounters, documented in a formal police report. His personal data was shared between various municipal partners under the PGA privacy covenant. In February 2024 the municipality informed the data subject that his PGA file had been closed due to the absence of further incidents, but that his data would remain stored for two years. The data subject objected, arguing that his inclusion in the PGA was unfounded, had damaged his reputation, and that continued storage constituted unlawful processing. He sought cessation of the processing under Article 21 GDPR. The municipality rejected his objection, upholding the continued retention of the data. The Court held that the processing of personal data pursued a task of public interest under Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, namely maintaining public order and safety. It accepted the police reports and the PGA expert’s assessment as a sufficient basis for the referral, and held that keeping the data for two years was proportionate to allow swift intervention if problems re-emerged. Although it was held that the data subject had a valid interest in challenging the lawfulness of the processing, the Court concluded that the municipality had demonstrated compelling legitimate grounds that outweighed his personal interest under Article 21 GDPR. The Court found that the municipality had not explained its decision properly at the time, so it formally struck down that decision. However, because the data processing itself was lawful, the outcome remained the same and the data could continue to be stored. The data subject’s appeal was therefore technically successful, but it did not stop the processing. The municipality was ordered to refund the court fe