Rb. Oost-Brabant - ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2023:7274: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{COURTdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Netherlands |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png |Court_Abbrevation=Rb. Oost-Brabant |Court_Original_Name=Rechtbank Oost-Brabant |Court_English_Name=District Court Oost-Brabant |Court_With_Country=Rb. Oost-Brabant (Netherlands) |Case_Number_Name=ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2023:7274 |ECLI=ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2023:7274 |Original_Source_Name_1= Rb. Oost-Brabant |Original_Source_Link_1=https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBZWB:202...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
}} | }} | ||
The Court of East Brabant rejected a data subject's [[Article 17 GDPR]] and [[Article 22 GDPR]] claims, which the data subject had originally made to the Municipality of Oisterwijk, as it found that the Municipality had valid grounds to reject the data subject's requests. | |||
== English Summary == | == English Summary == | ||
Revision as of 09:20, 7 November 2023
| Rb. Oost-Brabant - ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2023:7274 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | Rb. Oost-Brabant (Netherlands) |
| Jurisdiction: | Netherlands |
| Relevant Law: | Article 15 GDPR Article 17 GDPR Article 22 GDPR |
| Decided: | 18.10.2023 |
| Published: | 30.10.2023 |
| Parties: | |
| National Case Number/Name: | ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2023:7274 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2023:7274 |
| Appeal from: | |
| Appeal to: | |
| Original Language(s): | Dutch |
| Original Source: | Rb. Oost-Brabant (in Dutch) |
| Initial Contributor: | n/a |
The Court of East Brabant rejected a data subject's Article 17 GDPR and Article 22 GDPR claims, which the data subject had originally made to the Municipality of Oisterwijk, as it found that the Municipality had valid grounds to reject the data subject's requests.
English Summary
Facts
The data subject owned a mobile home, which was permanently pitched at a campsite. Between 31 March 2021 and 4 November 2021, the Municipality of Oisterwijk's tax authority charged the data subject for municipal taxes of sewerage and commuter tax.
The data subject objected to the taxes through the Municipality's objection procedure. The data subject founded his objection on GDPR grounds and made the following claims: (i) he made an Article 15 GDPR access request, (ii) claimed that the taxes were invalid as they were calculated through automated means, and invoked his right not to be subject to automated decision-making under Article 22 GDPR, and (iii) made an erasure request under Article 17 GDPR.
On 22 March 2022, the Municipality responded to the data subject's objection and provided him with a copy of his data held by them, in the context of the calculation of the commuter and sewerage tax charges. The Municipality rejected the data subject's Articles 17 and 22 GDPR requests.
The data subject objected to the Municipality's response and appealed it to the Court of East Brabant.
Holding
The Court held that the Municipality was entitled to reject the data subject's erasure request (Article 17 GDPR) and their Article 22 GDPR claim.
In relation to Article 17 GDPR, the Court held that the Municipality was entitled to reject the data subject's erasure request. The Municipality had a legitimate aim in retaining the data in assessing whether the data subject could be rightly classified as a taxable person. Moreover, the Municipality was legally obligated to retain the data under national administrative law (Article 17(3)(b) GDPR).
On the issue of Article 22 GDPR, the Court held that the Municipality had adequately demonstrated that all automated tax calculations were subject to sufficient human intervention, and thus did not fall under the scope of Article 22 GDPR. Consequently, they were entitled to reject the data subject's Article 22 GDPR claim.
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.
