Rb. Midden-Nederland - UTR 21/2729: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{COURTdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Netherlands |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png |Court_Abbrevation=Rb. Midden-Nederland |Court_Original_Name=Rechtbank Midden-Nederl...") |
(Shortened the facts) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
}} | }} | ||
The District Court Midden-Nederland ruled that a request to | The Dutch District Court Midden-Nederland ruled that a general request to rectify all changes to an employee file, managed by the municipality, was not a rectification request within the meaning of [[Article 16 GDPR]]. | ||
== English Summary == | == English Summary == | ||
=== Facts === | === Facts === | ||
The | The data subject used to be an employee at the municipality (controller) until 8 July 2008. On 6 May 2021, the data subject requested rectification of all changes made until this date in their files. | ||
=== Holding === | |||
The central question of this ruling is whether or not the data subject's request could be seen as a rectification request within the meaning of the GDPR. The court ruled that the data subject’s request to rectify changes made to his employee file could not be classified as a request within the meaning of [[Article 16 GDPR]]. The court stated that [[Article 16 GDPR]] is limited to ''rectifying incorrect personal data'' and ''completing personal dat''a which is incomplete. The court stated that this was not the initial intention of the data subject, who only made his request more specific at the hearing for this ruling. However, even with this clarification, the data subject was not able to prove that his request was a rectification request within the meaning of [[Article 16 GDPR]]. | |||
The court also noted that the request did also not qualify as a request for getting access to personal data ([[Article 15 GDPR]]), erasing personal data ([[Article 17 GDPR]]) or restricting the processing of personal data ([[Article 18 GDPR]]). | |||
The | |||
The request | The court concluded that the data subject's request was not a request within the meaning of the GDPR. Therefore, a (lacking) response from the controller to this request was not a "''decision''" (Besluit) within the meaning of Article 6(2)(b) of the General Administrative Law Act (Awb), a Dutch administrative law provision. The data subject's request itself could also not be regarded as an ''"application''" (aanvraag) in the sense of Article 1(3)(3) Awb either. | ||
Because of the fact that both the request from the data subject, as well as the (lacking) response from the controller did not fall under these national provisions, the appeal was deemed inadmissible by the court. | |||
== Comment == | == Comment == | ||
Latest revision as of 10:21, 7 December 2022
| Rb. Midden-Nederland - UTR 21/2729 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | Rb. Midden-Nederland (Netherlands) |
| Jurisdiction: | Netherlands |
| Relevant Law: | Article 16 GDPR Article 1:3(3) Dutch General Administrative Law Act Article 6:2(b) Dutch General Administrative Law Act |
| Decided: | 03.11.2022 |
| Published: | 18.11.2022 |
| Parties: | |
| National Case Number/Name: | UTR 21/2729 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2022:4535 |
| Appeal from: | |
| Appeal to: | Not appealed |
| Original Language(s): | Dutch |
| Original Source: | Zoekresultaat - inzien documentECLI:NL:RBMNE:2022:4535 (in Dutch) |
| Initial Contributor: | niilvfer |
The Dutch District Court Midden-Nederland ruled that a general request to rectify all changes to an employee file, managed by the municipality, was not a rectification request within the meaning of Article 16 GDPR.
English Summary
Facts
The data subject used to be an employee at the municipality (controller) until 8 July 2008. On 6 May 2021, the data subject requested rectification of all changes made until this date in their files.
Holding
The central question of this ruling is whether or not the data subject's request could be seen as a rectification request within the meaning of the GDPR. The court ruled that the data subject’s request to rectify changes made to his employee file could not be classified as a request within the meaning of Article 16 GDPR. The court stated that Article 16 GDPR is limited to rectifying incorrect personal data and completing personal data which is incomplete. The court stated that this was not the initial intention of the data subject, who only made his request more specific at the hearing for this ruling. However, even with this clarification, the data subject was not able to prove that his request was a rectification request within the meaning of Article 16 GDPR.
The court also noted that the request did also not qualify as a request for getting access to personal data (Article 15 GDPR), erasing personal data (Article 17 GDPR) or restricting the processing of personal data (Article 18 GDPR).
The court concluded that the data subject's request was not a request within the meaning of the GDPR. Therefore, a (lacking) response from the controller to this request was not a "decision" (Besluit) within the meaning of Article 6(2)(b) of the General Administrative Law Act (Awb), a Dutch administrative law provision. The data subject's request itself could also not be regarded as an "application" (aanvraag) in the sense of Article 1(3)(3) Awb either.
Because of the fact that both the request from the data subject, as well as the (lacking) response from the controller did not fall under these national provisions, the appeal was deemed inadmissible by the court.
Comment
This summary is an oral pronunciation of case number UTR 22/1513.
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the Dutch original. Please refer to the Dutch original for more details.
COURT CENTRAL NETHERLANDS Administrative law case number: UTR 21/2729 minutes of the oral judgment of the single judge of 3 November 2022 in the case between [plaintiff] from [place of residence] , plaintiff and [lecture] (Agent: mr. F. Heijne). Process flow On May 6, 2021, the claimant requested the Board to rectify all changes that were made without his knowledge after July 3, 2008 in his personnel file and in the Board's archives. The claimant also requests that the Board indicate which file documents played a role in the decision of 8 July 2008 to terminate his position, and which file documents were not included in the considerations. After the claimant served notice of default on the Board, he lodged an appeal on 24 June 2022 because the Board allegedly failed to decide on his request in time. The college has filed a statement of defence. Plaintiff subsequently responded in writing. The court heard the appeal at a hearing on 3 November 2022. Plaintiff appeared. The council was represented by its authorized representative. After the hearing of the case, the court immediately ruled at the hearing, pointing out to the parties the possibility of appealing against the oral decision. Decision The court declares the appeal inadmissible. Considerations 1. The court gives the following grounds for this. Relevant legal provisions 2. Pursuant to Article 34 of the AVG Implementation Act, a written decision on a request as referred to in Articles 15 to 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is taken within the period referred to in Article 12, third paragraph, of the AVG. time limits and, insofar as it has been taken by an administrative body, it applies as a decision within the meaning of the General Administrative Law Act (Awb). 3. Pursuant to Section 1:3(3) of the Awb, an application is understood to mean: a request from an interested party to take a decision. 4. Pursuant to Article 6:2, preamble and under b, of the Awb, the failure to make a decision on time is equated with a decision for the purposes of statutory provisions on objections and appeals. Court assessment 5. Plaintiff has requested changes to the file that the Board manages of him as a former employee. The court rules that this request cannot be regarded as a request within the meaning of the GDPR. Plaintiff's request aims to reverse all changes in his personnel file after July 3, 2008. That is not a rectification within the meaning of Article 16 of the GDPR, as the claimant argues. That provision is limited to the rectification of incorrect personal data and to the completion of incomplete personal data. That is not the purport of plaintiff's request. Only at the hearing did the claimant make his request more explicit and point out matters that he believes to be incorrect, but it also does not sufficiently follow that it concerns a request for rectification within the meaning of Article 16 of the GDPR. 6. The request is also not aimed at obtaining access to personal data, deleting personal data or limiting the processing of personal data within the meaning of Articles 15, 17 and 18 of the GDPR. Plaintiff has also not been able to make clear to which other provision in the GDPR his request would relate. 7. Because claimant's request is not a request within the meaning of the AVG, a response to that request is not a decision within the meaning of the Awb. Plaintiff's request cannot be regarded as an application within the meaning of the Awb in any other way either. There is therefore no appeal to the administrative court against the failure to respond to the request. Conclusion 8. The appeal is inadmissible. There is no justification for an order for costs. This ruling was pronounced in public on November 3, 2022 by mr. K. de Meulder, judge, in the presence of mr. K.E. Pruntel, clerk. clerk judge A copy of this official report has been sent to the parties at: Do you disagree with this statement? If you do not agree with this ruling, you can send a letter to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State in which you explain why you do not agree. This is called an appeal. You must submit this notice of appeal within 6 weeks of the day on which this official report was sent. You can see this date above.
