APD/GBA (Belgium) - 79/2024
From GDPRhub
| APD/GBA - 79/2024 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Authority: | APD/GBA (Belgium) |
| Jurisdiction: | Belgium |
| Relevant Law: | Article 77 GDPR Article 220 Wet betreffende de bescherming van natuurlijke personen met betrekking tot de verwerking van persoonsgegevens Article 58 Wet tot oprichting van de Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Rejected |
| Started: | |
| Decided: | 22.05.2024 |
| Published: | |
| Fine: | n/a |
| Parties: | n/a |
| National Case Number/Name: | 79/2024 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | n/a |
| Appeal: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | Dutch |
| Original Source: | APD/GBA (Belgium) (in NL) |
| Initial Contributor: | wp |
To bring a case before the DPA in Belgium on behalf of a data subject, a natural person had to demonstrate an interest to do so.
English Summary
Facts
While providing a consumer with technical support, a damage to the apartment occurred. A technician asked the consumer for contact data of apartment’s landlord to inform them about the damage.
Eventually, the technician sent the landlord an invoice for damage repair.
The consumer lodged a compliant with Dutch DPA (ADP/GBA) regarding unlawful processing of landlord’s data by technician.
Holding
The DPA dismissed the compliant.
The consumer, who initiated the proceedings, was not the data subject. Article 220 of Dutch data protection law (Wet betreffende de bescherming van natuurlijke personen met betrekking tot de verwerking van persoonsgegevens) determined the scope of entities allowed to bring a complaint on behalf of data subject. However, by virtue of Article 58 of Act establishing the Data Protection Authority (Wet tot oprichting van de Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit), the DPA was entitled to complaints lodged by any natural person, not only the data subject, if such a person had a sufficient interest in doing so.
Nevertheless, the consumer did not demonstrate the interest to act on behalf of landlord, who was a data subject. As a result, the compliant was inadmissible.
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.
1/6 Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision 79/2024 of 22 May 2024 File number: DOS-2024-01163 Subject: Processing the data of a third party The Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Data Protection Authority, composed of Mr Hielke HIJMANS, sole chair; 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 on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), hereinafter "GDPR"; Having regard to the Act of 3 December 2017 establishing the Data Protection Authority, hereinafter "WOG"; Having regard to the internal rules of procedure, as approved by the Chamber of Representatives on 20 December 2018 and published in the Belgian Official Gazette on 15 January 2019; Having regard to the documents in the file; Has taken the following decision regarding: The complainant: X, hereinafter referred to as “the complainant” The defendant: Y, hereinafter referred to as “the defendant” Decision 79/2024 — 2/6 I. Facts and procedure 1. The complainant entered into an agreement with the defendant for the purchase of a dishwasher and additional services. After a problem occurred with the dishwasher, the defendant sent a technician to the complainant’s home. During this intervention, damage was allegedly caused. The technician then asked the complainant for the contact details of the landlord of the home in order to inform him of the damage. According to the complainant, the technician used this data to send an invoice to the landlord on 18 January 2024. The landlord requested the defendant to forward the invoice to the complainant, which led to a dispute by the complainant of his liability for the costs on the invoice. The complaint to the Data Protection Authority concerns the processing of the landlord's data to send him an invoice. 2. On 3 March 2024, the complainant files a complaint with the Data Protection Authority against the defendant. 3. On 25 March 2024, the complaint is declared admissible by the First Line Service on the basis of Articles 58 and 60 WOG and the complaint is transferred to the Dispute Chamber on the basis of Article 62, § 1 WOG. II. Motivation 4. Based on the elements in the file that are known to the Dispute Chamber, and based on the powers assigned to it by the legislator on the basis of article 95, § 1 WOG, the Dispute Chamber decides on the further follow-up of the file; in this case the Dispute Chamber proceeds to dismiss the complaint in accordance with article 95, § 1, 3° WOG, based on the following motivation. 5. When a complaint is dismissed, the Dispute Chamber must motivate its decision gradually and: - pronounce a technical dismissal if the file contains no or insufficient elements that could lead to a conviction, or if there is insufficient prospect of a conviction due to a technical impediment, as a result of which it cannot reach a decision; - or to declare a policy dismissal if, despite the presence of elements that could lead to a sanction, the continuation of the investigation of the file does not seem appropriate in light of the priorities of the 1Court of Appeal Brussels, Market Court Section, 19 Chamber A, Market Affairs Chamber, judgment 2020/AR/329, 2 September 2020, p. 18. Decision 79/2024 — 3/6 Data Protection Authority, as specified and explained in the dismissal policy of the Dispute Chamber. 2 6. In the event that the case is dismissed on more than one ground, the grounds for dismissal (respectively technical dismissal and policy dismissal) must be dealt with in order of importance. 3 7. In the present case, the Dispute Chamber will proceed to a technical dismissal. There is one motive underlying the decision of the Dispute Chamber why it considers it undesirable to pursue the file further and therefore decides not to proceed, inter alia, to a hearing on the merits. 8. The Dispute Chamber namely rules that the complainant is not a data subject and does not demonstrate an interest in acting on behalf of the data subject. In accordance with criterion A.5 in the discontinuation policy of the Dispute Chamber, this leads to a technical discontinuation of the complaint due to the impossibility of dealing with it. 4 5 9. Referring to its previous decision-making practice, the Dispute Chamber points out the following: Article 58 WOG states: “Anyone may submit a written, dated and signed complaint or request to the Data Protection Authority”. In accordance with Article 60, paragraph 2 WOG “a complaint is admissible if it: - is drawn up in one of the national languages; - contains a statement of the facts, as well as the necessary indications for the identification of the processing to which it relates; - it falls within the competence of the Data Protection Authority” 10. The preparatory work of the WOG stipulates: “The Data Protection Authority may receive complaints or requests from anyone; natural persons but also legal persons, associations or institutions that wish to denounce an alleged infringement of the regulation. A complaint or request to the Data Protection Authority must be in writing, dated and signed by the person authorized to do so. A request must be interpreted in the broad sense of the word (request for information or clarification, a request to mediate, 6 ...).” 2 In this context, the Dispute Resolution Chamber refers to its policy on dismissal as set out in detail on the website of the GBA: https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/publications/sepotbeleid-van-de-geschillenkamer.pdf 3 Cf. Title 3 – In which cases will my complaint probably be dismissed by the Dispute Chamber? of the dismissal policy of the Dispute Chamber. 4Cf. criterion A.5 in the dismissal policy of the Dispute Chamber. 5 See, among others, Decision 30/2020 of 8 June 2020, https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/publications/besluit-ten- gronde-nr.-30-2020.pdf and Decision 49/2022 of 5 April 2022, https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/publications/zonder-volg-nr.-49-2022.pdf 6 Parl. doc., Chamber of Representatives, 2016-2017, DOC 54 2648/001, p. 40 (comment on Article 58 of Decision 79/2024 — 4/6 11. The WOG does not therefore exclude the possibility that a person other than the data subject or the person authorised by the data subject, as referred to in Article 220 of the Act of 30 July 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data, may lodge a complaint with the Data Protection Authority 12. Although the GDPR approaches the ‘complaint’ from the perspective of the data subject, by imposing obligations on the supervisory authorities when a person lodges a complaint (see Articles 57, 1., f) and 77 of the GDPR), the GDPR does not prevent national law from giving persons other than the data subjects the opportunity to lodge a complaint with the national supervisory authority. The possibility of such a referral corresponds moreover to the tasks assigned to the supervisory authorities by the GDPR. In this respect and generally speaking, each supervisory authority ensures: the monitoring and enforcement of the application of the GDPR (Article 57, 1., a) GDPR), and the performance of all other tasks related to the protection of personal data (Article 57, 1., v) GDPR). 13. In this respect, the Dispute Chamber finds that Article 58 WOG gives any person the possibility to file a complaint, provided that he has a sufficient interest in doing so in accordance with the aforementioned provisions of the GDPR. 14. In the present case, the Dispute Chamber notes that the complaint concerns the processing of personal data by the landlord of the complainant's home. The complainant is therefore not a 'data subject' within the meaning of Article 4.1 GDPR. The Data Protection Authority also accepts complaints from persons who are not a ‘data subject’ within the meaning of the GDPR, provided that they demonstrate an interest in acting on behalf of the data subject. In this case, the complainant has not demonstrated in any way that he has an interest in acting on behalf of the landlord. 15. Because the complainant is not a ‘data subject’ in the processing of the relevant personal data and does not demonstrate an interest in acting on behalf of the landlord, the Dispute Chamber decides to dismiss the complaint on the basis of criterion A.5 in its dismissal policy. 16. The Dispute Chamber notes, for the sake of completeness, that the complaint appears to be a subsidiary dispute in a broader dispute that must be settled before courts, tribunals, administrative tribunals or another competent authority (criterion B.3 in the dismissal policy). The file documents show that there is a broader dispute between the parties about liability for the costs of the damage. Furthermore, the complainant is said to have also filed a complaint with the original bill in response to the alleged facts). 7Cf. criterion B.3 in the dismissal policy of the Dispute Chamber. Decision 79/2024 — 6/6 1034ter of the Judicial Code (Ger.W.) must contain the elements listed. The 10 application for intervention must be submitted to the registry of the Market Court 11 in accordance with Article 1034quinquies of the Judicial Code, or via the e-Deposit information system of the Ministry of Justice (Article 32ter of the Judicial Code). In order to enable the complainant to consider other possible remedies, the Dispute Chamber refers the complainant to the explanation in its dismissal policy. 12 (signed). Hielke H IJMANS President of the Dispute Chamber 10 The application must state, on pain of nullity: 1° the day, month and year; 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 and a brief summary of the grounds of the action; 5° the judge before whom the action is brought; 6° the signature of the applicant or his lawyer. 11The application and its annex shall be sent, in as many copies as there are parties involved, by registered letter to the clerk of the court or lodged at the registry. 12Cf. Title 4 – What can I do if my complaint is closed? of the Dispute Settlement Chamber's policy on dismissal.
