Rijkeboer – CJEU Judgment (European Union, 2009)
CJEU precedent (Directive 95/46/EC, pre-GDPR)
This is a Court of Justice judgment predating the GDPR. It interprets Directive 95/46/EC (the Data Protection Directive). It is not a cookie or ePrivacy case and is excluded from cookie statistics and the Risk Calculator.
The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that people should be able to know who accessed their personal data, even if it was shared more than a year ago. This strengthens individuals' rights to understand how their data is used and shared. Businesses must keep records of data sharing for longer periods to comply with this ruling.
What happened
The CJEU ruled that individuals have the right to know who accessed their personal data beyond a one-year limit.
Who was affected
Individuals like Mr. Rijkeboer who want to know who accessed their personal data held by local authorities.
What the authority found
The court found that limiting access to data sharing records to one year is not compatible with EU data protection laws.
Why this matters
This decision emphasizes the importance of transparency in data handling and requires businesses to maintain detailed records of data sharing. Companies should review their data retention policies to ensure compliance with this broader access right.
National Law Articles
Mr. Rijkeboer requested the Board of Aldermen of Rotterdam (“the College”) to notify him of all the personal data related to him that the local authority disclosed to third parties in the two years prior. It also asked to have access to the identity of these third parties and to the content of the data disclosed to them. In particular, he wanted to know who had access to his address. The College complied only partially with this request by notifying him only of the data processed within the last year from his request. This was done in compliance with [https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0006723/2014-01-01 Article 103(1) Wet GBA]. Always according to [https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0006723/2014-01-01 Article 110 Wet GBA], the data related to Mr. Rijkeboer dating prior to the ones disclosed to him were erased. The question referred to the CJEU was whether the restriction laid out in the Wet GBA on the communication of data to one year prior to the relevant request compatible with [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31995L0046 Article 12(a) Dir.95/46] whether or not read in conjunction with [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31995L0046 Article 6(1)(e) Dir.95/46] and the principle of proportionality?’ [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31995L0046 Article 6(1)(e) Dir.95/46] requires Member States to ensure that personal data is kept for no longer than necessary for the purpose for which the data were collected. [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31995L0046 Article 12(a) Dir.95/46] provides data subjects with the right to access their personal data and to information on the recipients of those data, without setting a time-limit. THE CJEU considered that Mr. Rijkeboer’s claims concerns two different categories of data: 1. Personal data kept by local authority on a person, such as name and address, which is “basic data”; 2. Information on recipients or categorie
Outcome
CJEU Judgment
A judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union, typically on a preliminary reference from a national court.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Rijkeboer in EU
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Rijkeboer - European Union (2009). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: