RvS - 202201620/1/A3
| RvS - 202201620/1/A3 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | RvS (Netherlands) |
| Jurisdiction: | Netherlands |
| Relevant Law: | Article 4(1) GDPR Article 6 GDPR Article 17 GDPR Article 82 GDPR |
| Decided: | 16.08.2023 |
| Published: | 16.08.2023 |
| Parties: | |
| National Case Number/Name: | 202201620/1/A3 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:3130 |
| Appeal from: | |
| Appeal to: | Not appealed |
| Original Language(s): | Dutch |
| Original Source: | Raad van State (in Dutch) |
| Initial Contributor: | n/a |
Photographs of family home, taken for the purpose of a tax valuation, held to fall within the scope of the Article 4(1) GDPR definition of personal data.
English Summary
Facts
The data subject’s home was photographed in 2012 for the purposes of a tax valuation, under the Property Valuation Act. The Municipal Executive of Breda (the controller) held these photographs and initially was the body responsible for tax valuations. In 2019, the Municipal Executive of Breda transferred these responsibilities to the West Brabant Tax Authority of Breda, which then became the competent public body for handling tax valuations in Breda.
On 26 April 2020, the data subject (appellant) requested the Municipal Executive of Breda (the controller) to erase the photographs from their internal database. The photographs were focused on the architectural features of the home and the overall state of the property. However, from these photographs, the data subject’s license plate could be seen, as well as framed family photographs in the home.
On 15 May 2020, the Municipal Executive of Breda refused to erase the photographs, because the database that they were held in was transferred to the West Brabant Tax Authority of Breda and erased from the Municipal Executive’s systems. The data subject objected to the Municipal Executive’s refusal and made a formal complaint against the Municipal Executive’s decision through its internal disputes system. On 24 November 2020, the Municipal Executive declared the claim unfounded and rejected the data subject’s request for damages.
On 4 February 2022, the data subject appealed the Municipal Executive’s decision in court. The Court dismissed the appeal and declared the case inapplicable. The data subject appealed this decision. On 4 July 2023 the appeal was declared admissible by the Netherlands’s Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (the country’s highest administrative court).
Holding
The Court’s decision addressed two key issues, the applicability of the GDPR to the present case, and in the instance of applicability, the compliance of the Municipal Executive’s actions with the GDPR.
Firstly, regarding the applicable law, the court found that the GDPR was applicable.
The Court found that the photographs fell within the scope of the definition of personal data for the purpose of Article 4(1) GDPR. They noted that not all home valuation photographs would fall within the scope of Article 4(1) GDPR. However, as the photographs contained identifying factors such as the data subject’s number plate, and framed pictures of his family in the house, they fell within the definition of personal data. Thus the case fell within the material scope of the GDPR under Article 2 GDPR.
Secondly, regarding the compliance of the Municipal Executive’s actions with the GDPR.
Moreover, the Court found that the data subject had a right of erasure under Article 17 GDPR. However, the controller (the Municipal Executive of Breda) was justified to reject it, since the photographs had already been erased from the Municipal Executive’s system, when they were transferred to the West Brabant Tax Authority of Breda when they took over the tax valuation duties from the Municipal Executive in 2019.
Lastly, the Court found a violation of Article 6(1) GDPR as the Municipal Executive had established no lawful grounds to the processing.
The Court overruled the lower Court’s decision from 4 February 2022. On the basis of domestic administrative law, it then ordered the Municipal Executive to reconsider the data subject’s claim and reward damages based on the guidelines contained in Article 82 GDPR and the Austrian Post Case, C-300/21.
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.
