GHAMS - 200.295.747/01
| GHAMS - 200.295.747/01 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | GHAMS (Netherlands) |
| Jurisdiction: | Netherlands |
| Relevant Law: | Article 15(1)(h) GDPR |
| Decided: | 04.04.2023 |
| Published: | 04.04.2023 |
| Parties: | |
| National Case Number/Name: | 200.295.747/01 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2023:796 |
| Appeal from: | |
| Appeal to: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | Dutch |
| Original Source: | Rechtspraak.nl (in Dutch) |
| Initial Contributor: | Anton Ekker |
The Dutch Court of Appeal orders Uber to provide access to personal data to drivers and information about logic of automated decision-making.
English Summary
Facts
This decision is the result of an appeal (and incidental appeals) filed against a decision from the District Court of Amsterdam (available on GDPRhub). The District Court orderred Uber to provide to its drivers information regarding the rating by passengers but rejected several other requests for information under Article 15.
The different drivers had different requests in appeal. The requests concerned information about device data, driver's profile, tags (labels in the custumer service system), reports per journey, individual ratings per passenger, upfront pricing and batched matching system. Under Article 15, they also requested information about the recipients, the processing purposes, categories of personal data and existence of automated decision-making referred to in Article 22. Some drivers also requested portability within the meaning of Article 20.
Uber argued among other things that the qualification as personal data depended on whether the information in question was or not intended for internal consultation and deliberation.
Holding
The Court first assessed the admissibility of the incidental appeals under national law.
Then, it assessed each request. Its assessment can be summarized as followed.
- For the access to the driver's profile i.e. a note that Uber employees use to transfer customer service requests from drivers to other Uber employees, the Court refers to the CJEU Nowak case and considers that it contains a representation of the driver's specific request. The driver's profile constituted personal data and therefore falled within the scope of Article 15(1).
- Concerning access to the tags, the Court stated that it contained information about the relevant driver and therefore also falled within the scope of Article 15(1).
- Regarding the reports per journey and the individual ratings,
The court annulled the contested decision insofar as it rejected the request of [appellant sub 1] et al. concerning:
a) the initial request by [appellant sub 1] c.s., based on Article 15(1) GDPR, for access to the personal data concerning them (i) as described in production 2 to the notice of appeal and belonging to category 12 of the Guidance Notes, entitled 'Driver detailed device data', (ii) as included in the Driver's profile and (iii) as included in the 'tags';
(b) [appellant sub 3]'s initial request, based on Article 15(1) GDPR, for access to personal data concerning him in the category 'upfront pricing';
(c) the initial request from [appellant sub 1] c.s., based on Article 15(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the AVG, for access to information on the recipients or categories of recipients to whom personal data of [appellant sub 1] c.s. were disclosed for 'legal reasons or in the event of a dispute', as well as the processing purposes and categories of personal data concerned
(d) the initial request by [appellant sub 1] et al. for information based on Article 15(1)(h) of the AVG concerning the existence of automated decision-making within the meaning of that provision in so far as that request relates to the 'batched matching system', the 'upfront pricing system' whether or not in combination with the system of dynamic rates used by Uber as well as the determination of (average) ratings;
Uber was ordered, within two months of service of this order, to grant the requests referred to above under (a) to (c) as well as the request referred to above under (d) in the manner described in paragraph 3.41, subject to a penalty payment in the amount of €4,000.00 for each day or part thereof that Uber fails to comply with this order;
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.
