APD/GBA (Belgium) - 25/2024
From GDPRhub
| APD/GBA - 25/2024 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Authority: | APD/GBA (Belgium) |
| Jurisdiction: | Belgium |
| Relevant Law: | Article 5(1)(d) GDPR Article 13 GDPR |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Partly Upheld |
| Started: | |
| Decided: | 05.02.2024 |
| Published: | |
| Fine: | n/a |
| Parties: | Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën |
| National Case Number/Name: | 25/2024 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | n/a |
| Appeal: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | Dutch |
| Original Source: | APD (in NL) |
| Initial Contributor: | nzm |
The Belgian DPA issued a warning against a controller for failing to provide clear information regarding the processing to the data subject.
English Summary
Facts
On 18 December 2023, a data subject filed a complaint with the Belgian DPA (“APD”) against two controllers, regarding the storage and retention of personal data in a beneficial ownership register (“UBO register”). Two controllers were concerned: the first controller was the Federal Department of Finance who processed data in order to prevent money laundering and operated the modalities of the UBO register and the second controller was a company who had a legal obligation to declare a beneficial owner under Belgian law.
From 13 July 2023 to 27 August 2023, the data subject was added as a beneficial owner of a non-profit organization. He was informed of this registration in the UBO register on 13 July 2023. The data subject claimed that he was not a beneficial owner and that the registration was in error.
On 10 August 2023, the data subject asked to be removed from the UBO register. The first controller confirmed that the data subject was no longer registered as a beneficial owner. On 24 November 2023, the second controller informed him that his personal data would be completely removed from the UBO register.
The data subject considered that he did not receive a clear explanation from the second controller as to how it was possible for him to be registered.
Holding
Firstly, Article 5(1)(d) GDPR states that the controller must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the data is accurate and up-to date in view of the purposes for which they are processed. If the data is inaccurate, the controller must erase or rectify it. The APD considered that the first controller did in fact comply with this obligation since they informed the data subject by email that his data would be completely removed from the UBO registry so that his name would no longer appear in the history of changes.
Secondly, under Article 13 GDPR, the controller must deliver certain information regarding the processing to the data subject. In this case, the APD considered that not all essential information was communicated to the data subject, in particular the legal basis, the recipients, whether the data subject could invoke his rights or what retention period would apply. Therefore, the APD considered that the second controller failed to comply with its duty to provide information under Article 13 GDPR.
The APD thus dismissed the complaint to the extent it related to the first controller, and issued a warning to the second controller for failing to fulfill its duty to provide information.
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.
1/8
Dispute Chamber
Decision 25/2024 of February 5, 2024
File number: DOS-2023-05153
Subject: Incorrectly storing a data subject as “ultimate beneficial owner” in the
UBO register by the person responsible for providing information
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:
Complainant: X, hereinafter “the complainant”
The defendants: the Federal Public Service Finance, Koning Albert II laan box 1, 1030
Schaerbeek, hereinafter “the first defendant”
and
Y, hereinafter “the second defendant” Decision 25/2024 — 2/8
I. Facts and procedure
1. On December 18, 2023, the complainant will submit a complaint to the Data Protection Authority
against the first and second defendants.
2. The subject of the complaint concerns the storage and retention of personal data
the complainant in the register for ultimate beneficial owners (hereinafter, the 'UBO register'). Between
October 2022 and August 2023, the complainant played a supporting role in the second
defendant. He was taken by the legal representative of the second defendant
added to the UBO register as the final beneficiary of the aforementioned non-profit organization
the period from July 13, 2023 to August 27, 2023. On July 13, 2023, the complainant received a
notification from the first defendant that he had been registered in the UBO register
as the beneficial owner of the second defendant. Since the complainant has no
was the ultimate beneficiary, it was an incorrect registration.
On August 10, 2023, the complainant asked the second respondent to be struck off
of the UBO register. The second defendant confirmed that the complainant no longer
was registered in the UBO register as the ultimate beneficiary.
On November 24, 2023, the first respondent informed the complainant that the
personal data of the latter would be completely removed from the UBO
registry.
3. The complainant states that he “has not received a clear explanation from UBO as to how they got me
can register”, and that “the registration system does not guarantee that persons
be wrongly added to the UBO register.” He further states that “The release of
my personal data to register in the UBO register [...] without that
the necessary requirements have been met for this […]” was a violation of his “privacy”.
4. On January 3, 2024, the complaint will be declared admissible by the First Line Service 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.
II. Justification
5. The elements in the present case concern two different ones
controllers. This decision is therefore divided into two parts.
Regarding the processing of incorrect data by the first defendant:
6. On the basis of the elements in the file that are known to the Disputes Chamber, and on the basis
of the powers granted to it by the legislature on the basis of Article 95, § 1 WOG
assigned, the Disputes Chamber will decide on the further follow-up of the file; in this case Decision 25/2024 - 3/8
the Disputes Chamber will dismiss the complaint in accordance with Article 95,
§ 1, 3° WOG, based on the following justification.
7. If a complaint is dismissed, the Disputes Chamber will make its decision
to motivate gradually and:
- to issue a technical dismissal if the file does not exist or is insufficient
contains elements that could lead to a conviction, or if there is insufficient
there is a prospect of a conviction due to a technical obstacle,
which prevents her from reaching a decision;
- or declare a policy rejection, if despite the presence of elements
that could lead to a sanction, the continuation of the investigation
dossier does not seem appropriate in the light of the priorities of the
Data Protection Authority, as specified and explained in the
dismissal policy of the Disputes Chamber. 2
8. In the event of dismissal on more than one ground, the grounds for dismissal (resp.
technical dismissal and policy dismissal) should be treated in order of importance. 3
9. In the present file, the Disputes Chamber will dismiss the complaint,
based on technical considerations. There is one motive at the basis of the
decision of the Disputes Chamber as to why it considers it undesirable to take further action
to the file and therefore decides not to proceed with, inter alia, a hearing at
ground.
10. The relevant processing of the complainants' personal data by the first respondent
took place in the context of the obligations owed to the second defendant
according to the Act of 18 September 2017 on the prevention of money laundering and the
financing of terrorism and limiting the use of cash, and the Royal
decision of 30 July 2018 regarding the operating modalities of the UBO register.
11. The second defendant is an information officer as referred to in Article 2, 1° of the
Royal Decree of July 30, 2018. In accordance with articles 74 and 75 of the Law of 18
September 2017, and Article 3 §2 of the Royal Decree of 30 July 2018, “all
reporting agents, who are a non-profit association, an international
non-profit association or foundation, to the register electronically
the [referred to in Article 3 §2, 1° to 13°] information about each of their final
1Court of Appeal Brussels, Market Court Section, 19 Chamber A, Chamber for Market Affairs, judgment 2020/AR/329, September 2, 2020,
p. 18.
2
In this context, the Disputes Chamber refers to its dismissal policy as explained in detail on the GBA website:
https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/publications/sepotbeleid-van-de-geschikkamer.pdf
3 Cf. Title 3 – In which cases is my complaint likely to be dismissed by the Disputes Chamber? from the
dismissal policy of the Disputes Chamber. Decision 25/2024 — 4/8
beneficiaries participate […]”. In the present case, the legal person responsible for
the second defendant registered the complainant in the UBO register as “ultimate
beneficiary” of the second defendant for the period from July 13, 2023 to August 27
2023.
12. Article 4, 27° of the law of 18 September 2017 defines “beneficial owners”
however, as “the natural person(s) who is/are the ultimate owner of or
has (have) control over the client, the client's agent or the beneficiary
of life insurance contracts and/or the natural person(s) for whom
account a transaction is carried out or a business relationship is entered into.”
The plaintiff has never been a “beneficial beneficiary” of the second defendant. As
was also established by the first defendant in his email dated 24 November 2024
the complainant was therefore incorrectly registered in the UBO register as the ultimate beneficiary of the
second defendant.
13. In accordance with Article 5(1)(d) GDPR, the controller must make all reasonable efforts
take measures to ensure that the data is correct and up to date in view of the
purposes for which they are processed. Data that is not, should be
deleted or corrected. Article 21 of the Royal Decree of 30 July 2018 provides
in addition the following:
“The reporting agent must, under his sole responsibility, keep the information in his own files
registered incorrect data with regard to its ultimate beneficiary and correct or to
delete in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 1, d) of Regulation 2016/679 and these amendments without delay
to be communicated to the register.”
14. The plaintiff's incorrect registration was established when the first defendant contacted the plaintiff
informed by email on July 13, 2023 that he was registered as a final
beneficiary of the second defendant. This email gave the complainant the opportunity
to question registration. In his email on November 24, 2023, the first explains
defendant that automatic notification of data subjects who are registered as
ultimate beneficiaries, thus providing a mechanism to avoid incorrect registrations.
15. In accordance with Article 21 of the Royal Decree of 30 July 2018, the
information officer, being the second defendant, responsible for the improvement or
deletion of incorrect data recorded in its own files with
with regard to its ultimate beneficiaries. The first defendant therefore indicated the
complainant initially receives the following instructions:
“You will have to contact the non-profit organization and inform them that they should remove your name.
You may inform them that they should contact the UBO register because their file is not
is complete.” Decision 25/2024 – 5/8
The complainant states in his complaint that he contacted the second respondent, and that
the latter confirmed on September 4, 2023 that the complainant was removed from the UBO register
deleted.
16. With regard to the first defendant, the Disputes Chamber notes that on November 24
2023 informed the complainant by email that his data was “completely” from the UBO register
would be removed so that his name would no longer appear in the history of the
amendments of the second defendant. On this basis, the Disputes Chamber determines that:
the first defendant has taken reasonable measures in accordance with Article 5.1, d) GDPR
taken to “the personal data that, taking into account the purposes for which they are used
processed, are incorrect, be deleted without delay”.
17. The Disputes Chamber therefore decides that the first defendant has not committed an infringement
to Article 5.1, d) GDPR. Thus, the complaint is valid to the extent it relates to the
the first defendant is manifestly unfounded within the meaning of Article 57.4 GDPR.
Regarding the information obligation of the second defendant:
18. However, the Disputes Chamber notes that the complainant indicates that he was not aware
of the purpose of the collection and processing of his data by the second
defendant. After all, the factual elements show that the second defendant is the complainant
only mentioned in passing that the collection of his national register number was for the purpose
“add to the UBO register”.
19. Based on Article 13 GDPR, the controller has, in this case, the
second defendant has an obligation to provide information to the data subject. When the
data is collected directly from the data subject, he must be informed
be brought from both those referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 13 of the GDPR
elements, in particular: the identity and contact details of the
controller and, where applicable, the contact details of the
data protection officer; the processing purposes for which the
personal data are intended, as well as the legal basis for the processing; the recipients
or categories of recipients of the processing; the intention of the
controller for the data outside the European Economic Area
to pass on; the period during which the personal data will be stored
stored; the rights of the data subject under the GDPR, including the right to
to file a complaint with a supervisory authority, or the provision of
personal data is a legal or contractual obligation or a necessary one
condition for concluding an agreement, and what the possible consequences are when
this information is not provided; and the existence of automated
decision-making, including profiling referred to in Article 22 of the GDPR. The
The Disputes Chamber has further determined that the person concerned must be able to determine in advance Decision 25/2024 - 6/8
what the extent of the consequences of the processing are, so that it is not relevant at a later stage
surprises arise with the way his personal data has been used. The
information must be concrete and reliable, should not be abstract or ambiguous
terms are formulated and should not leave room for differences
interpretations. In particular, the purposes and legal basis for the processing
of personal data are clear.
20. Moreover, Article 21 of the Royal Decree of 30 July 2018 specifies in this case
what information the reporting agents must provide to their ultimate beneficiaries
communicate. This information contains the obligation of the reporting agents to:
to communicate relevant data to the register; the registration, processing and
keeping this data in the register; the name and address of the service within
the Treasury Administration is responsible for managing the register; the
access to the register for the purposes referred to in Articles 6 and 7 of the Royal Decree
listed entities and persons; the rights of the ultimate beneficial owner such as
provided for in Articles 12 to 22 and 34 of the GDPR; and the retention period of the data in the register
stored data.
21. In the present case, the Disputes Chamber notes that not all essential information
was communicated to the complainant. The factual elements show that the information that
provided to the complainant was limited to the following email dated June 23, 2023 from the
legal responsibility of the second defendant to the complainant and two others
those involved:
“[…] I still have to add you to the UBO register.
For this I need your national number.
Thank you for delivering this.”
For example, it was not clear from this email for what purpose the data was processed
would be, on the basis of which legal basis this would happen, who the recipients would be
that the data subject could rely on his rights set out in Articles 12 to 22 and 34
of the GDPR, or which retention period would apply.
22. In view of the foregoing, the Disputes Chamber decides that the second defendant is
information obligation in accordance with Article 5.1a) GDPR, in conjunction with Article 13 GDPR has not been fulfilled.
23. 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
4See also Decision on the merits 41/2020 of 29 July 2020, available on the website of the GBA Decision 25/2024 — 7/8
copying the file, he or she must contact the secretariat of the
Disputes Chamber, preferably via litigationchamber@apd-gba.be.
III. Publication and communication of the decision
24. Considering the importance of transparency with regard to decision-making
Dispute Chamber, this decision will be published on the website of the
Data Protection Authority. On the other hand, it is not necessary that the
identification details of the complainant and the second respondent directly
announced. The identity of the first defendant is stated in view of his identity
unavoidable identification as being responsible for the UBO register.
25. In accordance with its deposit policy, the Disputes Chamber will issue the decision to the respondents
to transfer . After all, the Disputes Chamber has decided to dismiss its decisions
ex officio to the defendants. However, the Dispute Chamber decided not to do so
such notification where the complainant has requested anonymity
of the defendants and the notification of the decision to the defendants, even if
it is pseudonymised, nevertheless makes it possible to contact the complainant
(re)identify . However, this is not the case in the present case.
FOR THESE REASONS ,
the Disputes Chamber of the Data Protection Authority decides, after deliberation, to:
- the complaint to the extent to which it relates to the first defendant
to be dismissed on the basis of Article 95, § 1, 3° of the WOG, in view of the fact that
no infringement of the GDPR can be established in this regard; and
- to formulate a warning on the basis of Article 95, § 1, 4° of the WOG
against the second defendant for failing to fulfill his obligation to provide information.
Pursuant to Article 108, § 1 of the WOG, within a period of thirty days from the
notice, an appeal against this decision will be filed with the Market Court (court of
appeal Brussels), with the Data Protection Authority as defendant.
Such an appeal can be lodged by means of an inter partes petition
must contain statements listed in Article 1034ter of the Judicial Code. It
5Cf. Title 5 – Will the dismissal of my complaint be published? Will the other party be informed of this?
of the dismissal policy of the Disputes Chamber.
6
Ibid.
7The petition states, under penalty of nullity:
1° the day, month and year; Decision 25/2024 — 8/8
an objection petition must be submitted to the registry of the Market Court
in accordance with Article 1034quinquies of the Dutch Civil Code. , 8 or via e-Deposit
IT system of Justice (Article 32ter of the Judicial Code).
To enable the complainant to consider other possible remedies, the
9
Disputes Chamber will refer the complainant to the explanation in its dismissal policy.
(get). Hielke H IJMANS
Chairman of the Disputes Chamber
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.
8
The petition 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.
9
Cf. Title 4 – What can I do if my complaint is closed? of the dismissal policy of the Disputes Chamber.
