APD/GBA (Belgium) - 67/2024

APD/GBA - 67/2024
Authority:	APD/GBA (Belgium)
Jurisdiction:	Belgium
Relevant Law:	Article 5(1)(c) GDPR
Type:	Complaint
Outcome:	Upheld
Started:
Decided:	30.04.2024
Published:	30.04.2024
Fine:	n/a
Parties:	n/a
National Case Number/Name:	67/2024
European Case Law Identifier:	n/a
Appeal:	n/a
Original Language(s):	Dutch
Original Source:	GBA (in NL)
Initial Contributor:	nzm

The DPA held that a municipality processing a third party’s criminal data to adequately justify a marriage refusal decision was disproportionate and could have been attained by less intrusive measures, for example anonymisation of the data.

English Summary

Facts

Two of the data subject's friends wanted to get married. However, this marriage was refused by the municipality as it was considered a marriage of convenience. In the refusal decision, the municipality mentioned the data subject and their criminal records. Indeed, the municipality based its decision on the opinion of the public prosecutor’s office which showed that the refusal was justified, and mentioned the data subject’s criminal records.

The data subject considered that the facts dated back more than 25 years and it were completely irrelevant to the marriage refusal decision. Therefore, they made an access request and an erasure request with the municipality. The municipality’s DPO responded that they were not the controller, and that they were merely carrying out a mandate imposed by the federal government. Indeed, the data came from the national database of the judicial authorities, as the public prosecutor’s report is available for inspection by those concerned at the court and the town hall. This document served as the justification for the municipality’s ruling.

The data subject’s lawyer responded to this answer and stressed that the municipality is indeed a controller. He indicated that the person who is responsible for investigating the legality of a marriage and who determines what data is collected for this purpose is the controller. In addition, they argued that although the public prosecutor’s opinion included criminal data, the municipality does not have to copy this opinion identically, especially since the data subject’s history was irrelevant and the couple was not even aware of his history at the time.

The DPO of the municipality responded that the prosecutor decided to include the data subject’s judicial past in their opinion, and that they could not answer the question regarding the prosecutor’s motives and legal basis for explicitly mentioning the data subject. The DPO also indicated that after a meeting that took place on the matter of marriages of convenience, they decided to communicate all considerations on the basis of which they take their refusal decisions in order to avoid “too limited” or “too vague” decisions. It also referred to a Ghent Court of Appeal judgement which held that it is common for authorities to include the opinion of the public prosecutor in their decision (Arrest van 14 January 2016, T. Vreemd. 2016, afl. 2, 2019).

After a mediation with the municipality, the data subject lodged a complaint with the Belgian DPA (‘GBA’).

Holding

Firstly, regarding the controllership, the GBA indicated the public prosecutor has the power to decide if an opinion is needed, without the municipality having a say in this. Therefore, the public prosecutor is responsible for the processing operations carried out in the context of this investigation. However, the municipality is responsible for investigating the legality of a marriage and determines what data should be collected for that purpose. Therefore, the municipality assesses whether to take into account the public prosecutor’s opinion. The GBA ruled that the municipality has the decision making power in this case, and must therefore be considered the controller.

Secondly, regarding the necessity and proportionality of the processing of the data subject’s criminal records, the GBA considered that it appeared to be, prima facie, disproportionate and in violation of the data minimisation principle. Indeed, the objective to adequately justify the refusal decision could have been achieved in a less intrusive manner, for example by anonymising the data. The GBA took into account the nature of the personal data. The DPA also noted that the municipality changed its practice and allows the anonymisation of personal data belonging to third parties, in marriage refusal decisions.

Lastly, regarding the data subject’s rectification request, the GBA considered that it could not assess the accuracy of the personal data as it did not have access to the data subject’s court file.

Therefore, the GBA issued a warning against the controller. This was a prima facie decision.

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.

1/12



                                                                          Dispute Chamber


                                                   Decision 67/2024 of April 30, 2024


File number: DOS-2023-03824


Subject: stating personal data (of a criminal nature) in a

marriage refusal decision by a municipality



The Disputes Chamber of the Data Protection Authority, composed of Mr

Hielke HIJMANS, sole chairman;


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 regarding the free movement of such data and to the revocation of

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


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

hereinafter “WOG”;


In view of the internal rules of order, as approved by the House of Representatives

Representatives on December 20, 2018 and published in the Belgian Official Gazette on
January 15, 2019;


Considering the documents in the file;



Has made the following decision regarding:



Defendant: Mr. X, represented by master VAN AERSCHOT, hereinafter “the complainant”


The Defendants: Y1, hereinafter “the Defendant 1”


                   Y2, hereinafter “the Defendant 2” Decision 67/2024 — 2/12


I. Facts and procedure


 1. The object of the complaint concerns the recording of the complainant's personal data

       (and in particular his criminal history) in a marriage refusal decision and

       a request for correction thereof. The complaint is also against a municipality (Defendant
       1) as against a public prosecutor's office (Defendant 2).


 2. On February 13, 2021, a couple of friends of the complainant wanted to get married. However, this marriage

       was refused by Respondent 1, because he was of the opinion that it was a
       marriage of convenience. In the decision of Defendant 1 who refused the marriage in question

       the complainant was also mentioned in the following paragraph:


       “They state that they met each other for the first time at the son's communion party
        from the (..) niece of Mrs. Z1, and this on (...). Mr. Z2 turned out to be friends with the

        husband of Z1, Mr

        National Database (ANG) quite known for […].”


 3. On the basis of the previous paragraph, Defendant 2, and later Defendant 1, attempts to:
       show that the environment of the spouse of the couple in question is not suitable, and

       therefore, in combination with the other elements in the file, a decision to refuse

       of marriage is justified. In other words, the personal data of the

       complainant are used in this way in a decision to refuse marriage

       of two thirds.

       The refusal of marriage decision of Respondent 1 has the above paragraph

       identically taken from the report of Defendant 2 dated. February 8, 2021. By doing this

       do, the parties to the intended marriage are now aware of the criminal law
       past history of the complainant. According to him, this is unjustified, as it is not relevant to it

       marriage of the parties, the facts date from more than 25 years ago, and the municipality

       cannot simply include this entire paragraph in the decision, especially when this

       criminal data.

 4. In March 2021, the complainant submits a request for access to his personal data and a

       request for data erasure and rectification to Respondent 1. He considers the addition of

       criminal data are completely irrelevant to the marriage refusal decision.

       Moreover, he would only have been in custody for the facts cited.

       The complainant was not sentenced to prison. From the statement by the Defendant 2
       However, this appears to be the case in the paragraph drawn up and restated by Respondent 1. He wants

       these statements should therefore be amended.


 5. The DPO of Respondent 1 responded on March 30, 2021. She stated that Respondent 1 did not
       controller, but the Civil Affairs Service only carries out an assignment

       imposed by the federal government. The criminal law data comes from Decision 67/2024 - 3/12


     from the report with negative advice from the Crown prosecutor. This data comes from

     the national databases of the judicial authorities. This report from the prosecutor

     Konings is available for inspection by those involved at the court and the town hall and serves

     as a motivation for the decision of the mayor who rules on the refusal to
     solemnization of the marriage.


     Defendant 1 refers the complainant to the authorities that have submitted the report to them

     transferred. She hereby provides the contact details of the DPO of the FPS Justice. She

     adds that questions regarding the legal basis of his judicial past
     specifically mentioned in the report of the Crown prosecutor

     at Y2. Finally, the DPO informs who has access to the information in question

     report.


6. On April 29, 2021, the complainant's lawyer will respond to the DPO's response. He
     emphasized that Respondent 1 is indeed the controller, because they are the

     has the opportunity to obtain non-binding advice from the public prosecutor's office. According to the law

     the registrar responsible for investigating

     the legality of a marriage and which determines which data will be used for this purpose

     collected. Defendant 1 then processes the personal data received in it

     within the framework of its independent and legally granted authority to assess whether
     there is an impediment to marriage.


     In addition, it is mentioned that criminal data may be included

     the advice of Respondent 2. However, this does not mean that Respondent 1 when writing
     a decision must copy this advice identically and must not take into account the

     principles of the GDPR. This is especially true given the criminal history of the

     complainant is irrelevant to comply with the obligation to state reasons for the decision, and the couple

     was not even aware of the complainant's past at the time.

7. An answer will follow from the DPO of Defendant 1 on May 19, 2021. With regard to the

     legal basis it says the following:


     “Legal basis for stating the criminal details and name of the client &

     request to remove it from the refusal decision

     As clarified in our first letter, it is the King's Attorney who does it

     felt it was proportionate to look up and complete your client's judicial history

     describe in its advice. We cannot answer your question about the reasons
     and legal basis for the attorney to expressly mention your client. We have

     you will also be provided with the Y's contact details.


     The report of the King's Attorney was subsequently available for inspection in court and it

     city Hall. In the past, the Public Prosecution Service has always informed us of Decision 67/2024 - 4/12


       to include the full advice of the Attorney in the refusal decision, whatever

       happened here.


 8. The DPO then refers to a report of the meeting on marriages of convenience

       of December 20, 2004, which states that “from now on, the unfavorable advice
       regarding intended marriages [will be] much more extensive in the sense that all elements that

       form the basis for this advice, will be shown and explained. Such as the ABS

       takes the advice of the Public Prosecutor as his own, my office considers it accurate

       to formulate motivation in an at least equally extensive manner. Such change in

       course of action is dictated by the judgment of the President of the first court

       predicate, such as in summary proceedings, who believes in some sham marriage files that the

       justification of the refusal decision under the ABS 'too limited', 'too vague' and 'not

       was sufficient. There are such violations of the rules of open government
       This has led to some marriages of convenience having to be concluded after all due to judicial decisions

       accomplished. At the time of the refusal decision and its notification to the

       partners, it is important that the ABS considers all considerations, according to which he is

       made a decision. In addition, it is desirable that the ABS also communicates that it

       The entire file, as it was transferred by the Public Prosecutor's Office, is available for inspection

       municipal government. Moreover, even the attachment of a copy of the file attached to the

       refusal decision, my office seems appropriate.”

 9. The DPO also refers to a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Ghent in which:

       stated that it is very common for authorities to take the preliminary advice of the public prosecutor's office

       include in their decision.


       “The court is of the opinion that the contested refusal decision meets the special requirements
       obligation to state reasons within the meaning of art. 167, fourth paragraph of the Dutch Civil Code. The official does not have any

       referred to the negative advice obtained from the Public Prosecution Service, but it

       adopted and as such made it his motivation. The method to...

       based on the preliminary advice of the Public Prosecution Service after a thorough police investigation

       research is very common, especially in smaller cities or municipalities with less

       foreign population compared to the larger cities (such as Antwerp, Brussels and

       Ghent), where special 'marriage of convenience' cells also function. In the smaller towns and cities

       municipalities, the registrar is responsible for fulfilling his task above all
       dependent on the public prosecutor and the police.”


 10. According to Defendant 1, the request for data deletion or anonymization can only be made

       performed in the authentic source; in the Central Criminal Register. This request serves as such

       should be addressed to the FPS Justice. She will come back to this later in a



1Judgment of January 14, 2016, T. Strange. 2016, episode 2, 2019 Decision 67/2024 — 5/12


       mediation procedure, in which she acknowledges that she can anonymize the data

       in the decision.

 11. The complainant sends a letter to the couple against whom the marriage refusal decision was made

       taken. He asks them to destroy the documents and to

       discretion.

 12. A mediation request is submitted by the complainant on June 11, 2021 (DOS-2021-

       04477). This mediation failed after the complainant felt it was not sufficiently far-reaching

       that Respondent 1 would anonymize the personal data in the decision itself. The complainer

       After all, he also wanted a correction of the facts.

       The mediation shows that Defendant 1 has since adjusted his practice. In the

       future would anonymize this personal data, where possible and relevant.

       The mediation is converted into a complaint. On November 8, 2021, the complaint will be filed by the

       First-line service is declared admissible on the basis of Articles 58 and 60 WOG and is

       the complaint has been transferred to the Disputes Chamber on the basis of Article 62, §1, WOG.

       This will result in a dismissal on May 11, 2023.


 13. On October 24, 2023, the complainant submits another complaint to the

       Data Protection Authority against the defendant(s).

 14. On October 24, 2023, the complaint will be declared admissible by the First Line Service on

       on the basis of Articles 58 and 60 WOG and the complaint is filed on the basis of Article 62, § 1 WOG

       transferred to the Disputes Chamber.

 15. In accordance with Article 95, § 2, 3° of the WOG as well as Article 47 of the internal regulations

       order of the GBA, the parties can request a copy of the file. If one

       both parties wish to make use of the opportunity to consult and

       copying the file, he or she must contact the secretariat of the
       Disputes Chamber, preferably via litigationchamber@apd-gba.be.



II. Justification


        II.1.1. Processing responsibility


 16. Defendant 1 initially indicated in communications with the complainant that she was not herself

       considered a controller when they follow the advice of the public prosecutor

       Konings in her decision to refuse marriage. The Dispute Chamber reminds us
       in this context, indicate that the concept of “controller” should be expanded Decision 67/2024 — 6/12



        defined to ensure effective and complete protection of data subjects
                      2
        to ensure.


 17. Article 4.7 GDPR, read in the light of that purpose, provides that a person or a

        entity should be classified as a 'controller' if it alone or

        jointly with others determines the purposes and means of the processing, then

        whether these objectives and means are determined in national law. If the latter

        is the case, it must be determined whether that law determines who is the

        controller or according to what specific criteria he or she becomes controller

                        3
        designated.

 18. In accordance with the division drawn up by the European Data Protection Board (hereinafter:

                                                                                                   4
        EDPB) creates, in this case, an implied legal authority. The official

        of the civil registry of the competent municipality must be obtained in accordance with Article 164/1, §4, OBW
                                                                                                                5
        check whether there are any impediments to marriage and whether they exist. This is further regulated in Article 167OBW, which

        stipulates that the registrar refuses to solemnize the marriage

        when it appears that the qualities and conditions required for a

        be allowed to enter into a marriage, or if he is of the opinion that the solemnization is contrary to the


        principles of public order. The registrar hereby decides
                                                                                                     6
        about the possibility of obtaining non-binding advice from the public prosecutor's office.


 19. The registrar is legally charged with investigating the

        legality of a marriage and determines which data must be collected for this purpose

        become. It is at the request of the registrar that it is made public





2 See, to that effect, judgments CJEU, 5 December 2023, C-683/21, Nacionalinis visuomenės sveikatos centras, (EU:C:2023:949),
para. 29, and CJEU, 5 December 2023, C-807/21, Deutsche Wohnen, (EU:C:2023:950), para. 40 and those cited there
jurisdiction.
3
 CJEU,11January2024,C-231-22,,Belgian State.Data Protection Authority,(ECLI:EU:C:2024:7),para.29.;European
Data Protection Board, Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of “controller” and
“processor” in the GDPR, July 7, 2021, para. 15 et seq.
4
 The case in which a (legal) person is assigned a specific assignment by law, or is imposed a duty to
to collect and further process certain personal data, without this (legal) person expressly consenting
is designated as controller. This is the case when a public body is assigned a task
which cannot be fulfilled without processing at least certain personal data for this purpose. The law
in that case determines the purpose of the processing and also determines, albeit indirectly, who is responsible for the processing
is responsible.

5Article 167 OBW: “The registrar refuses to solemnize the marriage if it appears that the requirements have not been met
the qualities and conditions required to enter into a marriage, or if he is of the opinion that the
performance is contrary to the principles of public order.

If there is a serious suspicion that the conditions set in the previous paragraph have not been met, the official may:
of the registry office, postpone the solemnization of the marriage, after, if necessary, the advice of the public prosecutor
the judicial district in which the applicants intend to marry, during 10.00

a maximum of two months from the wedding date proposed by the interested parties, in order to
to conduct research. […]
In the event of a refusal as referred to in the first paragraph, the registrar will provide reasons
the decision without delay to the knowledge of the interested parties. At the same time, a copy of this will be sent together

with a copy of all useful documents, sent to the prosecutor of the King of the judicial district
in which the refusal took place […].”
6Gent January 14, 2016, no. 5, https://www.ipr.be/sites/default/files/rechtspraak/20161_20160114D.pdf. Decision 67/2024 — 7/12



       ministry can initiate an investigation. It is thus up to the civil registrar

       stand to assess whether such processing is relevant. It clearly follows that

       the civil servant, or the municipality in sensu lato, has the decision-making power in this case, and

       therefore, it must be regarded as a controller.

       The public prosecutor has the authority to decide for himself which one

       personal data are needed to prepare advice, without the municipality here

       has a say in it. The prosecutor is therefore personally responsible with regard to the

       processing that takes place in the context of this research.


 20. It is then up to the registrar, partly based on the advice

       of the public prosecutor, to assess whether there is any

       impediments to marriage, in the context of its independent and legal rights

       authority.

 21. This decision must be properly substantiated. Once again this is an obligation that rests on

       the registrar, who must personally assess which processing operations

       are relevant in the context of this obligation to state reasons. It is therefore up to Respondent 1 to

       assess whether an identical adoption of (part of) the advice should take place.

       Defendant 1 indicates that he has made agreements to enhance the collaboration

       facilitate this, but these must be seen in the light of the GDPR.


 22. Based on the foregoing, the Disputes Chamber determines that Respondent 1 is

       should be properly regarded as a controller, both for the

       identically adopting the advice of Defendant 2 in her marriage refusal decision,

       and the way in which the parties involved can provide advice at the town hall
               8
       look into . Therefore, Defendant 1 must be deemed liable under Article 5(2) GDPR
       to be responsible for compliance with the provisions referred to in paragraph 1 of this article

       principles regarding the processing operations required under national law

       perform, and therefore for all obligations imposed by the GDPR on the controller

       imposes.9



        II.1.2. Necessity and proportionality


 23. It follows from Article 5.1.c) GDPR that any processing is relevant and limited to what

       necessary for the purposes for which they are to be processed. So is the

       foreseen processing activity is not permitted if it is less intrusive



7Act of 29 July 1991 regarding the explicit motivation of administrative acts.
8
 The municipality is also responsible for informing the parties involved. After all, it is informing
one of the tasks assigned to it in accordance with applicable national law. See CJEU, January 11, 2024, C-231-22, ,
Belgian state t. Data Protection Authority, (ECLI:EU:C:2024:7), para. 38.
9By analogy from CJEU, January 11, 2024, C-231-22, , Belgian State v. Data Protection Authority, (ECLI:EU:C:2024:7),
para. 43. Decision 67/2024 — 8/12



       measures are possible to achieve the purpose of the processing and may only be carried out
       personal data are processed that are necessary, sufficient and relevant for the

       goal or goals.0


 24. The complainant emphasizes that the registrar in the exercise of his duties

       legal powers can refuse to solemnize a marriage. One such

       refusal decision must be sufficiently substantiated. Such motivation can be a

       contain (integral) adoption of an advice from the public prosecutor, if this is the case

       advice is relevant to the substantiation of the official's decision. However, this

       does not mean that the registrar can comply with the principles of the GDPR
       ignore when personal data is included in the advice of the public prosecutor,

       especially if the decision does not concern the data subject whose personal data

       are processed. The complainant adds that he believes that there is sufficient

       factual and legal considerations in the file to make such a decision

       even without explicitly mentioning the identity of the complainant and its full information

       to include criminal history in the refusal decision.


 25. The Disputes Chamber is also of the opinion that such processing, i.e. it is identical

       adopt the advice of the public prosecutor in the
       marriage refusal decision, prima facie disproportionate and in violation of the

       minimization principle seems to be. The purpose (i.e. to adequately motivate the

       decision taken within the framework of its legal authority) would be less

       can be achieved in a drastic manner. For example, the Disputes Chamber encourages anonymization

       of personal data.


 26. The nature of the personal data must also be taken into account.
                                                                                 11
       Since this case concerns data of a criminal nature, the

       Dispute Chamber recommends a more cautious approach.

 27. In the context of the mediation procedure that preceded this complaint, the Defendant

       1 the following:


       “After our last contact in July 2021, the civil affairs department itself contacted
       the W public prosecutor's office and presented this specific case. The public prosecutor's office has confirmed to us that the

       The municipality worked in accordance with the agreements, but that they had nothing against us

       can now anonymize the names of third parties in a refusal decision. Consequently

       we can respond to the other party's request for the name of the other party



10
  Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 03/2013 on purpose limitation, April 2, 2013, p. 15.
11Article 10 GDPR: “Personal data concerning criminal convictions and criminal offenses or in connection therewith
containing security measures may only be processed under public supervision pursuant to Article 6(1).
or if the processing is permitted by Union or Member State law providing appropriate safeguards for the
rights and freedoms of those involved. Comprehensive records of criminal convictions are only allowed
are kept under government supervision.” Decision 67/2024 — 9/12


     anonymize in the refusal decision (the civil affairs department will record the necessary information in this file

     steps).We will also apply this guideline to the future files of

     the parquet."

28. Defendant 1 has therefore now adjusted its working method with regard to the possible

     anonymizing personal data (particularly when they belong to third parties).

     marriage refusal decisions.

29. Finally, the Disputes Chamber also wishes to draw attention to the manner in which the

     advice from the public prosecutor can be viewed at the town hall. It is

     to Defendant 1 to also do this in a manner that takes into account the

     principles of the GDPR.

30. Due to the changes already implemented in the practice of Respondent 1, the

     Dispute Chamber decides to warn Respondent 1, as provided in Article 95, §1,

     4°, of the WOG. At this point, the Dispute Chamber does not think it is necessary to ask for more

     to impose drastic corrective measures.


      II.1.3. Request for rectification


31. The complainant also requested a rectification of his personal data in the

     refusal of marriage decision, because he believes that it is incorrect.


32. Defendant 1 states that the municipality is not authorized to follow the advice of the public prosecutor
     King to change. Moreover, the municipality has no access to the judicial system

     file of the complainant, which prevented her from verifying whether the information provided was correct

     goods. A request for rectification or deletion of data from data in the

     original advice should be addressed to the competent government authorities.

33. The Disputes Chamber notes that it cannot verify the accuracy of the personal data

     because it does not have access to the complainant's judicial file. She

     prima facie acknowledges that Respondent 1 cannot change the advice of

     Defendant 2.



      II.1.4. Competence of the Disputes Chamber with regard to the King's Attorney
          and courts


34. First of all, the Disputes Chamber recalls its jurisdiction. Article 4, §2, WOG stipulates
     after all, the GBA is not competent for the supervision of processing by courts and tribunals

     courts, as well as by the public prosecutor in the exercise of their judicial functions

     tasks. This follows from Article 55.3 GDPR, which stipulates that supervisory

     authorities are not competent to supervise processing by courts

     exercise of their judicial functions. Decision 67/2024 — 10/12


 35. The Disputes Chamber therefore decides prima facie not to rule on this matter

      Defendant 2.


 36. In addition, the Disputes Chamber also emphasizes the power of a court to:

      to communicate information (such as having an opinion viewed), which is covered by the
      responsibility of these bodies themselves and which the Disputes Chamber does not discuss

      has control. 12



       II.1.5. Correcting measures


 37. This decision is a prima facie decision taken by the Disputes Chamber

      in accordance with Article 95 of the WOG on the basis of the complaint submitted by the complainant,

      in the context of the “procedure prior to the decision on the merits” and none

      decision on the merits of the Disputes Chamber within the meaning of Article 100 of the WOG.

 38. The Disputes Chamber has thus decided, on the basis of Article 58.2.a) GDPR and Article 95, §

      1, 4° of the WOG, to give Defendant 1 a warning for violating the

      minimization principle.

 39. The purpose of this decision is to inform the defendant of the fact that this

      has committed an infringement of the provisions of the GDPR and has the opportunity to do so

      still agree to comply with the aforementioned provisions. The previously discussed

      compensation in the mediation procedure is hereby encouraged.


 40. If the defendant does not agree with the content of this prima facie case
      decision and is of the opinion that it can put forward factual and/or legal arguments that

      could lead to a new decision, it can request a reconsideration

      submit to the Disputes Chamber in accordance with the procedure established in Articles 98 in conjunction

      99 of the WOG, known as a “treatment on the merits”. This request must be

      sent to the email address litigationchamber@apd-gba.be within a period of 30

      days after notification of this primafacie decision. If applicable, implementation will take place

      of this decision is suspended for the above-mentioned period.

 41. In the event of a continuation of the merits of the case, the

      Disputes Chamber the parties on the basis of Articles 98, 2° and 3° in conjunction with Article 99 of the

      invite WOG to submit their defenses and any documents they consider useful

      to be added to the file. If necessary, the present decision will become final

      suspended.







1By analogy with CJEU, 24 March 2022, C-245/20, Dutch Data Protection Authority, (ECLI:EU:C:2022:216), para. 38. Decision 67/2024 — 12/12



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

in accordance with Article 1034quinquies of the Dutch Civil Code. , or via the e-Deposit information system

of the Ministry of Justice (Article 32ter of the Ger.W.).







 (ge). Hielke H IJMANS


 Chairman of the Disputes Chamber






















































      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 matter and brief summary of the grounds of the claim;

      5° the judge before whom the claim is brought;
      6° the signature of the applicant or his lawyer.

14The application with its attachment will be sent by registered letter in as many copies as there are parties involved
deposited with the clerk of the court or at the registry.