APD/GBA (Belgium) - 79/2024

APD/GBA - 79/2024
Authority:	APD/GBA (Belgium)
Jurisdiction:	Belgium
Relevant Law:	Article 77 GDPR Article 220 Wet betreffende de bescherming van natuurlijke personen met betrekking tot de verwerking van persoonsgegevens Article 58 Wet tot oprichting van de Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit
Type:	Complaint
Outcome:	Rejected
Started:
Decided:	22.05.2024
Published:
Fine:	n/a
Parties:	n/a
National Case Number/Name:	79/2024
European Case Law Identifier:	n/a
Appeal:	Unknown
Original Language(s):	Dutch
Original Source:	APD/GBA (Belgium) (in NL)
Initial Contributor:	wp

A tenant filed a complaint against a technician who processed his landlord’s personal data. The DPA rejected the complaint since the tenant was neither a data subject nor was affected by the data processing

English Summary

Facts

A technician provided a tenant with technical support in their apartment. While providing this technical support, a damage to the apartment occurred and the technician asked the tenant for the contact information of the apartment’s landlord to inform them about the damage.

Eventually, the technician sent the landlord an invoice for the repair of the damage.

The tenant lodged a compliant with the Belgian DPA (ADP/GBA) regarding unlawful processing of the landlord’s data by the technician.

Holding

The DPA rejected to handle the compliant.

The tenant, who initiated the proceedings, was not the data subject. Article 220 of Dutch data protection law (Wet betreffende de bescherming van natuurlijke personen met betrekking tot de verwerking van persoonsgegevens) determined the scope of entities allowed to bring a complaint on behalf of data subject. However, by virtue of Article 58 of Act establishing the Data Protection Authority (Wet tot oprichting van de Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit), the DPA was entitled to complaints lodged by any natural person, not only the data subject, if such a person had a sufficient interest in doing so.

Nevertheless, the tenant did not demonstrate the interest to act on behalf of landlord, who was a data subject. As a result, the compliant was inadmissible.

Comment

Share your comments here!

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.

1/6

Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision 79/2024 of 22 May 2024

File number: DOS-2024-01163

Subject: Processing the data of a third party

The Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Data Protection Authority, composed of Mr

Hielke HIJMANS, sole chair;

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016

on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of

personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing

Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), hereinafter "GDPR";

Having regard to the Act of 3 December 2017 establishing the Data Protection Authority,

hereinafter "WOG";

Having regard to the internal rules of procedure, as approved by the Chamber of Representatives on 20 December 2018 and published in the Belgian Official Gazette on

15 January 2019;

Having regard to the documents in the file;

Has taken the following decision regarding:

The complainant: X, hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”

The defendant: Y, hereinafter referred to as “the defendant” Decision 79/2024 — 2/6

I. Facts and procedure

1. The complainant entered into an agreement with the defendant for the purchase of a dishwasher and additional services. After a problem occurred with the dishwasher, the defendant sent a technician to the complainant’s home.

During this intervention, damage was allegedly caused. The technician then asked the complainant for the contact details of the landlord of the home in order to inform him of the damage. According to the complainant, the technician used this data

to send an invoice to the landlord on 18 January 2024. The landlord requested the
defendant to forward the invoice to the complainant, which led to a dispute by

the complainant of his liability for the costs on the invoice.

The complaint to the Data Protection Authority concerns the processing of the

landlord's data to send him an invoice.

2. On 3 March 2024, the complainant files a complaint with the Data Protection

Authority against the defendant.

3. On 25 March 2024, the complaint is declared admissible by the First Line Service

on the basis of Articles 58 and 60 WOG and the complaint is transferred to the Dispute

Chamber on the basis of Article 62, § 1 WOG.

II. Motivation

4. Based on the elements in the file that are known to the Dispute Chamber, and based on

the powers assigned to it by the legislator on the basis of article 95, § 1 WOG,

the Dispute Chamber decides on the further follow-up of the file; in this case

the Dispute Chamber proceeds to dismiss the complaint in accordance with article 95,

§ 1, 3° WOG, based on the following motivation.

5. When a complaint is dismissed, the Dispute Chamber must motivate its decision

gradually and:

- pronounce a technical dismissal if the file contains no or insufficient

elements that could lead to a conviction, or if there is insufficient

prospect of a conviction due to a technical impediment,

as a result of which it cannot reach a decision;

- or to declare a policy dismissal if, despite the presence of elements that could lead to a sanction, the continuation of the investigation of the

file does not seem appropriate in light of the priorities of the

1Court of Appeal Brussels, Market Court Section, 19 Chamber A, Market Affairs Chamber, judgment 2020/AR/329, 2 September 2020,
p. 18. Decision 79/2024 — 3/6

Data Protection Authority, as specified and explained in the

dismissal policy of the Dispute Chamber. 2

6. In the event that the case is dismissed on more than one ground, the grounds for dismissal (respectively

technical dismissal and policy dismissal) must be dealt with in order of importance. 3

7. In the present case, the Dispute Chamber will proceed to a technical dismissal. There is one

motive underlying the decision of the Dispute Chamber why it considers it undesirable

to pursue the file further and therefore decides not to proceed, inter 

alia, to a hearing on the merits.

8. The Dispute Chamber namely rules that the complainant is not a data subject and does not

demonstrate an interest in acting on behalf of the data subject. In accordance with criterion A.5 in the

discontinuation policy of the Dispute Chamber, this leads to a technical discontinuation of the complaint

due to the impossibility of dealing with it. 4

5
9. Referring to its previous decision-making practice, the Dispute Chamber points out the following:

Article 58 WOG states: “Anyone may submit a written, dated and signed

complaint or request to the Data Protection Authority”. In accordance with Article

60, paragraph 2 WOG “a complaint is admissible if it:

- is drawn up in one of the national languages;

- contains a statement of the facts, as well as the necessary indications for the

identification of the processing to which it relates;

- it falls within the competence of the Data Protection Authority”

10. The preparatory work of the WOG stipulates: “The

Data Protection Authority may receive complaints or requests from anyone;

natural persons but also legal persons, associations or institutions that wish to

denounce an alleged infringement of the regulation. A complaint or request to

the Data Protection Authority must be in writing, dated and signed by the person

authorized to do so. A request must be interpreted in the broad sense of the word

(request for information or clarification, a request to mediate,

6
...).”

2
In this context, the Dispute Resolution Chamber refers to its policy on dismissal as set out in detail on the website of the GBA:

https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/publications/sepotbeleid-van-de-geschillenkamer.pdf
3 Cf. Title 3 – In which cases will my complaint probably be dismissed by the Dispute Chamber? of the

dismissal policy of the Dispute Chamber.
4Cf. criterion A.5 in the dismissal policy of the Dispute Chamber.
5
See, among others, Decision 30/2020 of 8 June 2020, https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/publications/besluit-ten-
gronde-nr.-30-2020.pdf and Decision 49/2022 of 5 April 2022,
https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/publications/zonder-volg-nr.-49-2022.pdf
6
Parl. doc., Chamber of Representatives, 2016-2017, DOC 54 2648/001, p. 40 (comment on Article 58 of Decision 79/2024 — 4/6

11. The WOG does not therefore exclude the possibility that a person other than the data subject or the person authorised by the data subject, as referred to in Article 220 of the Act of 30 July 2018

on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of

personal data, may lodge a complaint with the Data Protection Authority

12. Although the GDPR approaches the ‘complaint’ from the perspective of the data subject, by imposing obligations on the

supervisory authorities when a person lodges a complaint

(see Articles 57, 1., f) and 77 of the GDPR), the GDPR does not prevent national law from giving

persons other than the data subjects the opportunity to lodge a complaint with the

national supervisory authority. The possibility of such a referral corresponds

moreover to the tasks assigned to the supervisory authorities by the GDPR. In this respect and generally speaking, each supervisory authority ensures:

the monitoring and enforcement of the application of the GDPR (Article 57, 1., a) GDPR), and the
performance of all other tasks related to the protection of personal data (Article 57, 1., v) GDPR).

13. In this respect, the Dispute Chamber finds that Article 58 WOG gives any person the

possibility to file a complaint, provided that he has a sufficient interest in doing so

in accordance with the aforementioned provisions of the GDPR.

14. In the present case, the Dispute Chamber notes that the complaint concerns the

processing of personal data by the landlord of the complainant's home. The complainant

is therefore not a 'data subject' within the meaning of Article 4.1 GDPR.

The Data Protection Authority also accepts complaints from persons who are not

a ‘data subject’ within the meaning of the GDPR, provided that they demonstrate an interest in

acting on behalf of the data subject. In this case, the complainant has not demonstrated

in any way that he has an interest in acting on behalf of the landlord.

15. Because the complainant is not a ‘data subject’ in the processing of the
relevant personal data and does not demonstrate an interest in acting on behalf of the
landlord, the Dispute Chamber decides to dismiss the complaint on the basis of criterion A.5 in its

dismissal policy.

16. The Dispute Chamber notes, for the sake of completeness, that the complaint

appears to be a subsidiary dispute in a broader dispute that must be

settled before courts, tribunals, administrative tribunals or another

competent authority (criterion B.3 in the dismissal policy). The

file documents show that there is a broader dispute between the parties

about liability for the costs of the damage. Furthermore, the complainant is said to have also filed a complaint with the

original bill in response to the alleged facts).
7Cf. criterion B.3 in the dismissal policy of the Dispute Chamber. Decision 79/2024 — 6/6

1034ter of the Judicial Code (Ger.W.) must contain the elements listed. The 10

application for intervention must be submitted to the registry of the Market Court

11
in accordance with Article 1034quinquies of the Judicial Code, or via the e-Deposit information system

of the Ministry of Justice (Article 32ter of the Judicial Code).

In order to enable the complainant to consider other possible remedies, the

Dispute Chamber refers the complainant to the explanation in its dismissal policy. 12

(signed). Hielke H IJMANS

President of the Dispute Chamber

10
The application must state, on pain of nullity:
1° the day, month and year;

2° the surname, first name, place of residence of the applicant and, where applicable, his capacity and his national register or company number;

3° the surname, first name, place of residence and, where applicable, the capacity of the person to be summoned;

4° the subject and a brief summary of the grounds of the action;

5° the judge before whom the action is brought;

6° the signature of the applicant or his lawyer.

11The application and its annex shall be sent, in as many copies as there are parties involved, by registered letter
to the clerk of the court or lodged at the registry.

12Cf. Title 4 – What can I do if my complaint is closed? of the Dispute Settlement Chamber's policy on dismissal.