CFI Brussels - 2021/2476/A: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Ar moved page Trib. Civ. Bruxelles - 2021/2476/A to CFI Brussels - 2021/2476/A) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|Court-BG-Color= | |Court-BG-Color= | ||
|Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png | |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png | ||
|Court_Abbrevation= | |Court_Abbrevation=CFI | ||
|Court_With_Country= | |Court_With_Country=CFI Brussels (Belgium) | ||
|Case_Number_Name=2021/2476/A | |Case_Number_Name=2021/2476/A | ||
Latest revision as of 09:52, 14 December 2023
| CFI - 2021/2476/A | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | CFI Brussels (Belgium) |
| Jurisdiction: | Belgium |
| Relevant Law: | Article 77 GDPR 1382 Civil code 1382 code civil |
| Decided: | 27.05.2022 |
| Published: | |
| Parties: | |
| National Case Number/Name: | 2021/2476/A |
| European Case Law Identifier: | |
| Appeal from: | |
| Appeal to: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | French |
| Original Source: | noyb (in French) |
| Initial Contributor: | n/a |
The Brussels Tribunal held that the Belgian DPA improperly handled the case of a complainant and committed a breach of its duty of care by not handling his amicable resolution request within a reasonable period of time.
English Summary
Facts
Mr X had filed a complaint with the Belgian DPA because his ex-wife was posting pictures of his son on Facebook. The litigation Chamber closed the case. The litigation Chamber further suggested the complainant to request a mediation to a dedicated service within the DPA, in order to reach an amicable settlement witht he other party. The complainant started the procedure on 30 December 2019 and only received an answer from the DPA on 18 May 2020. After several reminders, on 1 October 2020, the DPA informed the complainant that the mediation did not succeed. The complainant sued the DPA for damages before the Brussels court for not dealing with his case in a timely manner and with the appropriate care.
Holding
The Tribunal held that the Belgian DPA lacked diligence on the following grounds. First, no explanation was given to the complainant on the different steps undertaken to handle the complaint, despite the numerous reminders sent by the complainant. Second, no response was provided despite the DPA having committed to do so before 15 August 2020. Third, not having handled the case within a reasonable period of time. The DPA was ordered to pay a symbolic amount of 1 euro to the complainant, since no further damage could be demonstrated by the complainant as a consequence of the lack of diligence.
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 French original. Please refer to the French original for more details.
