Court case C/02/438794 / HA RK 25-192 (E) – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2025)

The data subject is a participant in a pension fund operated by the controller. He receives pension benefits and is concerned about the accuracy of his pension accrual, particularly in light of the upcoming transition to a new pension system. Because no rights can be derived from the Uniform Pension Overview (UPO), the data subject tried obtaining more certainty regarding the correctness of his pension. Relying on Article 15 GDPR, the data subject requested that the controller provide (i) a complete overview of the personal data on which his pension calculation was based, (ii) a clear explanation of how those data resulted in the pension amounts shown in the UPO, and (iii) a confirmation that the data used were correct. The requested information included, inter alia, pensionable salary, part-time percentages, years of service, and value transfers. The controller refused to provide the requested information. It argued that the GDPR did not provide a legal basis for the request, that the data subject had already retired before the GDPR became applicable, and that the requested information did not qualify as personal data. The controller further submitted that the GDPR was not intended to enable verification of pension calculations or pension administration and that the relevant data were already accessible through the UPO. The data subject brought proceedings before the Court, seeking an order to the controller to provide the requested information, a penalty payment, and an award of costs. The Court dismissed the request in its entirety. The Court held that the scope of the right of access under Article 15 GDPR is limited to personal data as defined in Article 4(1) GDPR. While that concept is broad and may include both objective and subjective information relating to an identifiable person, it does not extend to calculations themselves. The Court found that the data subject’s request was primarily aimed at obtaining the pension calculations themselves and a comprehensive explanation of how those calculations were made. Such calculations are not personal data, as they are not information that, by their content, purpose, or effect, relate to an identifiable natural person. Accordingly, they cannot be obtained by invoking the GDPR. To the extent that the request concerned underlying documents on which the calculations were based, the Court held that these could not be claimed under the GDPR either. In any event, the data subject already had access to the relevant data through the UPO. The Court further held that explanations of the data and confirmations of their correctness do not constitute personal data and thus fall outside the scope of Article 15 GDPR. The Court concluded that the data subject’s need for certainty regarding his pension, including in the context of the transition to the new pension system, could not be addressed through a GDPR access request. Consequently, the request was rejected.