Rb. Amsterdam - AMS 22/1414: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:37, 19 April 2022

Rb. Amsterdam - AMS 22/1414

Court:	Rb. Amsterdam (Netherlands)
Jurisdiction:	Netherlands
Relevant Law:	Article 17 GDPR Article 34 Implementation Act General Data Protection Regulation
Decided:	24.03.2022
Published:	12.04.2022
Parties:
National Case Number/Name:	AMS 22/1414
European Case Law Identifier:	ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2022:1605
Appeal from:
Appeal to:	Not appealed
Original Language(s):	Dutch
Original Source:	Rechtspraak (in Dutch)
Initial Contributor:	A. Mobayen

The Dutch preliminary relief judge has rejected a request for interim injunction aimed at deleting the applicant's credit register based on Article 34 of the Implementation Act General Data Protection Regulation. The deletion of a credit register is preceded by a weighing of interests in which the individual interest of the applicant in the removal of the credit registration is weighed up against the social interest in maintaining this registration. The outcome of this balancing of interests was that the decision not to delete this data was not disproportionate. Mainly because one year after the date of repayment of the debt, it is still too early to state that the registration is disproportionate. The preliminary relief judge also took the circumstances of the case into account, such as the fact that those involved with the loan cannot wait until the five-year term has expired. The preliminary relief court also considered the fact that the interim injunction could not be reversed.

English Summary

Facts

The applicant has requested that his credit registration be deleted by the Credit Bank. Because the Credit Bank declined, the applicant requested the preliminary relief judge for an interim injunction. Particularly since this registration impedes the reservation of finance when purchasing a home.

Holding

The Court refused a request for interim injunction with regard to the removal of a credit register on the basis of Article 24 of the Implementation Act General Data Protection Regulation, on the basis of a concrete weighing of interests and because the injection could not be reserved.

Comment

The judgment of the preliminary relief judge has a provisional character and does not bind the court in any proceedings on the merits.

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.


The Court denied a request for injunctive relief regarding the removal of a credit register based on Article 24 of the Implementation Act General Data Protection Regulation, on the basis of a set of proportions and because the injection could not be reserved.

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 }}
- The Dutch preliminary relief judge has rejected a request for interim injunction aimed at deleting the applicant's credit register based on Article 34 of the Implementation Act General Data Protection Regulation. The deletion of a credit register is preceded by a weighing of interests in which the individual interest of the applicant in the removal of the credit registration is weighed up against the social interest in maintaining this registration. The outcome of this balancing of interests was that the decision not to delete this data was not disproportionate. Mainly because one year after the date of repayment of the debt, it is still too early to state that the registration is disproportionate. The preliminary relief judge also took the circumstances of the case into account, such as the fact that those involved with the loan cannot wait until the five-year term has expired. The preliminary relief court also considered the fact that the interim injunction could not be reversed.
+The Dutch preliminary relief judge has rejected a request for interim injunction aimed at deleting the applicant's credit register based on Article 34 of the Implementation Act General Data Protection Regulation. The deletion of a credit register is preceded by a weighing of interests in which the individual interest of the applicant in the removal of the credit registration is weighed up against the social interest in maintaining this registration. The outcome of this balancing of interests was that the decision not to delete this data was not disproportionate. Mainly because one year after the date of repayment of the debt, it is still too early to state that the registration is disproportionate. The preliminary relief judge also took the circumstances of the case into account, such as the fact that those involved with the loan cannot wait until the five-year term has expired. The preliminary relief court also considered the fact that the interim injunction could not be reversed.
 == English Summary ==