APD/GBA (Belgium) - 13/2019: Difference between revisions
(added link to decision in Dutch) |
m (Ar moved page APD/GBA - 13/2019 to APD/GBA (Belgium) - 13/2019) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
<!--Information about the decision--> | <!--Information about the decision--> | ||
|Case_Number_Name= | |Case_Number_Name=13/2019 | ||
|ECLI= | |ECLI= | ||
|Original_Source_Name_1=Published by the DPA | |Original_Source_Name_1=Published by the DPA | ||
|Original_Source_Link_1=https:// | |Original_Source_Link_1=https://autoriteprotectiondonnees.be/publications/decision-quant-au-fond-n-13-2019.pdf | ||
|Original_Source_Language_1=French | |Original_Source_Language_1=French | ||
|Original_Source_Language__Code_1=FR | |Original_Source_Language__Code_1=FR | ||
|Type=Complaint | |Type=Complaint | ||
| Line 174: | Line 169: | ||
<!--Here the main article starts--> | <!--Here the main article starts--> | ||
The Belgian DPA (APD/GBA) reaffirms the importance of the data subjects’ rights, especially when the data processing involves special categories of personal data as understood by Article 9 GDPR. | |||
==English Summary== | ==English Summary== | ||
===Facts=== | ===Facts=== | ||
The plaintiff had used the defendant’s services, a nonprofit organization, for medical care. | The plaintiff had used the defendant’s services, a nonprofit organization, for medical care. Afterwards, she received a communication from that same organization, informing her of the enrolment of its managing director on a regional electoral list. Upon receiving the communication, the plaintiff decided to exercise her rights as data subject, in order to obtain more detailed information on the data processing and gain access to the personal data being processed about her. (Art. 12, 15 GDPR). Getting no response from the data controller within the legal deadline (1 month), she also exercised her right to erasure (Art. 17 GDPR) arguing that the data processing could not have been lawful. Obtaining no response whatsoever from the defendant, she finally lodged a complaint with the data protection authority in accordance with Art. 77 GDPR. | ||
===Holding=== | ===Holding=== | ||
The data protection authority ruled in | The data protection authority ruled in favour of the plaintiff and summoned the data controller to comply with Art. 12, 15 and 17 GDPR by answering the data subject’s requests. Furthermore, the DPA reminds that an infringement to Art. 12, 15 and 17 GDPR are to be considered particularly grave with regard to the nature of the data processing involving special categories of personal data. | ||
==Comment== | ==Comment== | ||
Latest revision as of 16:52, 12 December 2023
| APD/GBA - 13/2019 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Authority: | APD/GBA (Belgium) |
| Jurisdiction: | Belgium |
| Relevant Law: | Article 12 GDPR Article 15 GDPR Article 17 GDPR |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Upheld |
| Started: | |
| Decided: | 17. 12. 2019 |
| Published: | |
| Fine: | 2000 EUR |
| Parties: | Anonymous |
| National Case Number/Name: | 13/2019 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | n/a |
| Appeal: | n/a |
| Original Language(s): | French |
| Original Source: | Published by the DPA (in FR) |
| Initial Contributor: | n/a |
The Belgian DPA (APD/GBA) reaffirms the importance of the data subjects’ rights, especially when the data processing involves special categories of personal data as understood by Article 9 GDPR.
English Summary
Facts
The plaintiff had used the defendant’s services, a nonprofit organization, for medical care. Afterwards, she received a communication from that same organization, informing her of the enrolment of its managing director on a regional electoral list. Upon receiving the communication, the plaintiff decided to exercise her rights as data subject, in order to obtain more detailed information on the data processing and gain access to the personal data being processed about her. (Art. 12, 15 GDPR). Getting no response from the data controller within the legal deadline (1 month), she also exercised her right to erasure (Art. 17 GDPR) arguing that the data processing could not have been lawful. Obtaining no response whatsoever from the defendant, she finally lodged a complaint with the data protection authority in accordance with Art. 77 GDPR.
Holding
The data protection authority ruled in favour of the plaintiff and summoned the data controller to comply with Art. 12, 15 and 17 GDPR by answering the data subject’s requests. Furthermore, the DPA reminds that an infringement to Art. 12, 15 and 17 GDPR are to be considered particularly grave with regard to the nature of the data processing involving special categories of personal data.
Comment
Feel free to add your comment here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the original decision in Dutch. Please refer to the original for more details.
Machine translation to be added.
