CFI Brussels - 2021/2476/A: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{COURTdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Belgium |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png |Court_Abbrevation=Trib. Civ. Bruxelles |Court_With_Country=Trib. Civ. Bruxelles (Belgiu...") |
(source) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|Original_Source_Name_1=noyb | |Original_Source_Name_1=noyb | ||
|Original_Source_Link_1=https:// | |Original_Source_Link_1=https://noyb.eu/files/GDPRhub/Trib.%20Civ.%20Bruxelles%20-%202021_2476_A.pdf | ||
|Original_Source_Language_1=French | |Original_Source_Language_1=French | ||
|Original_Source_Language__Code_1=FR | |Original_Source_Language__Code_1=FR | ||
Revision as of 15:52, 7 June 2022
| Trib. Civ. Bruxelles - 2021/2476/A | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | Trib. Civ. Bruxelles (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 |
A Brussels Tribunal confirmed that the BE DPA did not properly handled the case of a complainant and committed a breach of its duty of care by leaving the complainant in the dark for 9 months about the handling of his request to reach an amicable solution within a reasonable period of time.
English Summary
Facts
Mr X filed a complaint with the BE DPA because his ex-wilfe was posting pictures of his son on Facebook. The litigation Chamber closed the case and suggested to the complainant to ask a mediation to the dedicated service within the DPA to reach an amicable settlement. The complainant sent such a request on 30/12/2019 but only received an answer from the DPA on 18 May 2020. After several reminders, the APD informed the complainant on 1 October 2020 that the mediation did not succeed. The complainant sued the APD for damages before the Brussels court, for not dealing with his case in a timely and with the appropriate care.
Holding
The Tribunal held that the APD lacked of diligence on the following grounds: - no explanation was given to the complainant on the different steps undertaken to handle the complaint, despite the numerous reminders sent by the complainant - not having answered to the complainant despite having committed to provide an answer before 15 August 2020 - not having handled the case within a reasonable period of time
The DPA is order to pay 1 euro to the complainant, as a symbolic amount, since no other 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.
