RvS - 202202762/1/A3: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{COURTdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Netherlands |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png |Court_Abbrevation=RvS |Court_Original_Name=Raad van State |Court_English_Name=the Dutch Council of State |Court_With_Country=RvS (Netherlands) |Case_Number_Name=202202762/1/A3 |ECLI=ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:3948 |Original_Source_Name_1=de Rechtspraak (Netherlands) |Original_Source_Link_1=https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:3948&showbutton=true&keyword=avg&idx=4...") |
m (→Facts) |
||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
=== Facts === | === Facts === | ||
A data subject | A data subject underwent psychiatrist examination within a court proceeding. The court assigned that task to Netherlands Institute for Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology (Nederlands Instituut voor Forensische Psychiatrie en Psychologie). During the examination, the Institute created the final report and additional documents, including the feedback report, which was not shared with the court. | ||
The data subject filed an access request in reference to the feedback report with the Minister of Legal Protection. The Minister exclude the application of the GDPR to data at | The data subject filed an access request in reference to the feedback report with the Minister of Legal Protection. The Minister exclude the application of the GDPR to the data at hand and didn’t disclosed the data. | ||
The appeal proceedings, initiated by the data subject resulted in dismissal of the Minister’s decision. However, the District Court of First Instance of Gelderland (Rechtbank Gelderland) examining the appeal | The appeal proceedings, initiated by the data subject resulted in the dismissal of the Minister’s decision. However, the District Court of First Instance of Gelderland (Rechtbank Gelderland) examining the appeal and found the request didn’t cover the personal data within the meaning of the GDPR. | ||
The data subject lodged an appeal with the Dutch Council of State (Raad van State). | The data subject lodged an appeal with the Dutch Council of State (Raad van State). | ||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
The court rejected the appeal. | The court rejected the appeal. | ||
The court explained that under [[Article 2 GDPR#2d|Article 2(2)(d) GDPR]] | The court explained that under [[Article 2 GDPR#2d|Article 2(2)(d) GDPR]] the GDPR doesn’t apply to processing of personal data within criminal proceedings. The feedback report was drafted as a part of criminal proceedings against the data subject. The purpose of the feedback report was to monitor the quality of the final report, disclosed to the court. For the court, the feedback report served then as the prosecution the criminal proceedings. | ||
Consequently, the GDPR, including Article 15, didn’t apply to the data subject’s request and the Minister was entitled to reject that request. | Consequently, the GDPR, including Article 15, didn’t apply to the data subject’s request and the Minister was entitled to reject that request. | ||
Revision as of 13:23, 14 October 2024
| RvS - 202202762/1/A3 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | RvS (Netherlands) |
| Jurisdiction: | Netherlands |
| Relevant Law: | Article 2(2)(d) GDPR Article 15 GDPR |
| Decided: | 02.10.2024 |
| Published: | 02.10.2024 |
| Parties: | Nederlands Instituut voor Forensische Psychiatrie en Psychologie (Netherlands Institute for Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology) |
| National Case Number/Name: | 202202762/1/A3 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:3948 |
| Appeal from: | Rb. Gelderland (Netherlands) 20/2380 |
| Appeal to: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | Dutch |
| Original Source: | de Rechtspraak (Netherlands) (in Dutch) |
| Initial Contributor: | wp |
A court found the report of data subject’s psychiatrist examination in criminal proceedings was not covered by the provision of the GDPR.
English Summary
Facts
A data subject underwent psychiatrist examination within a court proceeding. The court assigned that task to Netherlands Institute for Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology (Nederlands Instituut voor Forensische Psychiatrie en Psychologie). During the examination, the Institute created the final report and additional documents, including the feedback report, which was not shared with the court.
The data subject filed an access request in reference to the feedback report with the Minister of Legal Protection. The Minister exclude the application of the GDPR to the data at hand and didn’t disclosed the data.
The appeal proceedings, initiated by the data subject resulted in the dismissal of the Minister’s decision. However, the District Court of First Instance of Gelderland (Rechtbank Gelderland) examining the appeal and found the request didn’t cover the personal data within the meaning of the GDPR.
The data subject lodged an appeal with the Dutch Council of State (Raad van State).
Holding
The court rejected the appeal.
The court explained that under Article 2(2)(d) GDPR the GDPR doesn’t apply to processing of personal data within criminal proceedings. The feedback report was drafted as a part of criminal proceedings against the data subject. The purpose of the feedback report was to monitor the quality of the final report, disclosed to the court. For the court, the feedback report served then as the prosecution the criminal proceedings.
Consequently, the GDPR, including Article 15, didn’t apply to the data subject’s request and the Minister was entitled to reject that request.
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.
