APD/GBA (Belgium) - 132/2024: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{DPAdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Belgium |DPA-BG-Color= |DPAlogo=LogoBE.png |DPA_Abbrevation=APD/GBA |DPA_With_Country=APD/GBA (Belgium) |Case_Number_Name=132/2024 |ECLI= |Original_Source_Name_1=Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit |Original_Source_Link_1=https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/publications/zonder-gevolg-nr.-132-2024.pdf |Original_Source_Language_1=French |Original_Source_Language__Code_1=FR |Original_Source_Name_2= |Original_Source_Link_2= |Original_S...") |
m (→Facts) |
||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
The data subject filed a complaint to the Belgian DPA against (a) the owners of the building that the data subject was previously renting (hereinafter: controller 1) and (b) the First Instance Tribunal (hereinafter: controller 2) . The complaint concerned the unlawful processing of the data subject´s civil status. | The data subject filed a complaint to the Belgian DPA against (a) the owners of the building that the data subject was previously renting (hereinafter: controller 1) and (b) the First Instance Tribunal (hereinafter: controller 2) . The complaint concerned the unlawful processing of the data subject´s civil status. | ||
The processing happened in the context of a litigation in front of controller 2. More specifically, Belgian law requires the tenant to notify the lessors of any change in their civil status. In this instance, controller 1 communicated | The processing happened in the context of a litigation in front of controller 2. More specifically, Belgian law requires the tenant to notify the lessors of any change in their civil status. In this instance, the data subject informed controller 1 about their divorce who then communicated this information to controller 2. | ||
The data subject | The data subject advanced two claims: | ||
- The data processing | - The data processing was unlawful under [[Article 6 GDPR|Article 6 GDPR]]; and | ||
- Controller 2 considered the change in civil status excessively as an infraction happened in 2013 cannot be justified by a divorce that happened in 2020. | - Controller 2 considered the change in civil status excessively as an infraction happened in 2013 cannot be justified by a divorce that happened in 2020. | ||
Revision as of 09:29, 26 November 2024
| APD/GBA - 132/2024 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Authority: | APD/GBA (Belgium) |
| Jurisdiction: | Belgium |
| Relevant Law: | Article 6 GDPR Article 6(1)(f) GDPR Article 57(4) GDPR |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Rejected |
| Started: | |
| Decided: | 14.10.2024 |
| Published: | |
| Fine: | n/a |
| Parties: | n/a |
| National Case Number/Name: | 132/2024 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | n/a |
| Appeal: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | French |
| Original Source: | Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit (in FR) |
| Initial Contributor: | elu |
The DPA dismissed a complaint of a tenant, the data subject, against their former owners and First Instance Tribunal, controller 1 and controller 2, due to technical and opportunity reasons.
English Summary
Facts
The data subject filed a complaint to the Belgian DPA against (a) the owners of the building that the data subject was previously renting (hereinafter: controller 1) and (b) the First Instance Tribunal (hereinafter: controller 2) . The complaint concerned the unlawful processing of the data subject´s civil status.
The processing happened in the context of a litigation in front of controller 2. More specifically, Belgian law requires the tenant to notify the lessors of any change in their civil status. In this instance, the data subject informed controller 1 about their divorce who then communicated this information to controller 2.
The data subject advanced two claims:
- The data processing was unlawful under Article 6 GDPR; and
- Controller 2 considered the change in civil status excessively as an infraction happened in 2013 cannot be justified by a divorce that happened in 2020.
The DPA first asked the data subject to contact the two controllers. However, the data subject replied that the violation of the GDPR was so blatant and that they saw no reason to contact them.
Holding
The DPA dismissed the case against (a) controller 1 because the request is manifestly unfounded and excessive on the basis of Article 57(4) GDPR. Particularly, the communication of the civil status change to controller 2 falls within the “legitimate interest” linked to their defence in the context of a dispute, and thus was in line with Article 6(1)(f) GDPR.
Furthermore, the DPA dismissed the case against (b) controller 2 as the analysis of data protection compliance is not competence of such court, but instead of the DPA.
Finally, the DPA further considered that there is already an open administrative procedure with a decision concerning similar matters.
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.
Frequently viewed topics
