the Mayor of Zwolle – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2026)

Court Ruling
DPA RbOverijssel13 February 2026Netherlands
final
Court Ruling

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.

A data subject requested access to personal data processed about him, contained in an advice report from t[https://www.riec.nl/site/binaries/site-content/collections/documents/2014/01/01/corporate-brochure-riec-liec-engels/Corporate+brochure+Engels.pdf he Regional Information and Expertise Center (RIEC)], related to his application for a liquor and hospitality license. The RIEC report was prepared as part of a Bibob investigation (a Dutch law for integrity assessments in public administration) into the legality of the business transfer and financial flows. The Mayor (the controller) rejected the request under Article 15(4) GDPR, Article 23(1)(i) GDPR, and Article 41 GDPR, claiming that restricting access was necessary and proportionate to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the Mayor himself, and that the RIEC report fell under the confidentiality obligation in Article 28 of the [https://www.justis.nl/sites/default/files/2022-10/Factsheet%20The%20Dutch%20Bibob%20Act.pdf Bibob Act.] The data subject filed an objection to this refusal, which the Mayor declared unfounded and maintained the refusal. The data subject subsequently appealed the decision to the District Court Overijssel. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the controller lawfully refused access to the personal data in the RIEC report. The court found that the report was part of a [https://www.justis.nl/sites/default/files/2022-10/Factsheet%20The%20Dutch%20Bibob%20Act.pdf Bibob] investigation and therefore subject to the confidentiality obligations under [https://www.justis.nl/sites/default/files/2022-10/Factsheet%20The%20Dutch%20Bibob%20Act.pdf Article 28 of the Bibob Act,] which preclude disclosure except in limited circumstances that did not apply here. Also, the court confirmed that restricting access was necessary and proportionate to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the Mayor and the RIEC, as permitted under Article 15(4) GDPR, Article 23(1)(i) GDPR, a

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 41 GDPR
Art. 15(4) GDPR
Art. 23(1) GDPR

National Law Articles

Article 28 Bibob Act
Decision AuthorityRb. Overijssel
Full Legal Summary

A data subject requested access to personal data processed about him, contained in an advice report from t[https://www.riec.nl/site/binaries/site-content/collections/documents/2014/01/01/corporate-brochure-riec-liec-engels/Corporate+brochure+Engels.pdf he Regional Information and Expertise Center (RIEC)], related to his application for a liquor and hospitality license. The RIEC report was prepared as part of a Bibob investigation (a Dutch law for integrity assessments in public administration) into the legality of the business transfer and financial flows. The Mayor (the controller) rejected the request under Article 15(4) GDPR, Article 23(1)(i) GDPR, and Article 41 GDPR, claiming that restricting access was necessary and proportionate to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the Mayor himself, and that the RIEC report fell under the confidentiality obligation in Article 28 of the [https://www.justis.nl/sites/default/files/2022-10/Factsheet%20The%20Dutch%20Bibob%20Act.pdf Bibob Act.] The data subject filed an objection to this refusal, which the Mayor declared unfounded and maintained the refusal. The data subject subsequently appealed the decision to the District Court Overijssel. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the controller lawfully refused access to the personal data in the RIEC report. The court found that the report was part of a [https://www.justis.nl/sites/default/files/2022-10/Factsheet%20The%20Dutch%20Bibob%20Act.pdf Bibob] investigation and therefore subject to the confidentiality obligations under [https://www.justis.nl/sites/default/files/2022-10/Factsheet%20The%20Dutch%20Bibob%20Act.pdf Article 28 of the Bibob Act,] which preclude disclosure except in limited circumstances that did not apply here. Also, the court confirmed that restricting access was necessary and proportionate to protect the rights and freedoms of others, including the Mayor and the RIEC, as permitted under Article 15(4) GDPR, Article 23(1)(i) GDPR, a

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for the Mayor of Zwolle in NL

This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Ruling Date

13 February 2026

Authority

DPA RbOverijssel

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
AI-verified and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. the Mayor of Zwolle - Netherlands (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: