Court of Appeal of Brussels - 2020/AR/329
| Hof van Beroep - 2020/AR/329 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | Hof van Beroep Brussel (Belgium) |
| Jurisdiction: | Belgium |
| Relevant Law: | Article 57(4) GDPR Article 77 GDPR |
| Decided: | 02.09.2020 |
| Published: | 18.09.2020 |
| Parties: | |
| National Case Number/Name: | 2020/AR/329 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | |
| Appeal from: | |
| Appeal to: | |
| Original Language(s): | Dutch |
| Original Source: | Belgian Data Protection Authority (in Dutch) |
| Initial Contributor: | n/a |
The Market Court BDPA dismissed a complaint by a former notary against her accountants (who sent her data by e-mail to other notary) because (i) it did not "have a broad societal impact" and (ii) complaint also filed before another authority (& BDPA wished to avoid double investigations). Plus: BDPA anyway had to make budgetary choices about which cases to handle.
English Summary
Facts
A (former) notary was in a dispute with another notary, the partner in her previous notary office. Her accountants sent personal data regarding her by e-mail to the other notary, and she filed a complaint against her accountants before the APD/GBA.
The APD/GBA dismissed the complaint (in a decision that has not been published), considering that:
- the complaint did not "have a broad societal impact" and
- a complaint had also been filed before another authority (for notaries), stating that the APD/GBA wished to avoid double investigations.
In addition, in a footnote, the APD/GBA noted that it anyway had to make budgetary choices about which cases to handle.
Dispute
Was the APD/GBA entitled to dismiss the complaint? Which justifications are required/permitted for dismissal?
Holding
First, the Market Court held that:
- ïf it chooses to dismiss a complaint, the APD/GBA has to provide reasons for such dismissal;
- if it is unclear on the basis of the APD/GBA's decision which reasons were decisive, the Market Court "must observe" that the justifications cannot support the decision;
- a decision based on incorrect or "legally unacceptable" reasons has to be overturned;
- the Market Court is not permitted to give its own judgment on facts (due to the very nature of the appellate procedure before the Market Court - and the Market Court's powers) - instead, it can only check whether the APD/GBA took its decision on the basis of correct facts.
In relation to the reasons given by the APD/GBA (in its decision) for dismissal of the complaint, the Market Court noted the following:
- on the fact that the complaint did not have any "broad societal impact": this reason for dismissal was insufficient, as the APD/GBA did not justify in the decision why it had reached this conclusion;
- on the fact that the notary had also filed another complaint before another authority: this reason for dismissal was insufficient, as no decision had yet been taken in those proceedings (moreover, that complaint was filed later, apparently);
- on the fact that the APD/GBA had to make budgetary choices: the Market Court stated that "citizens cannot be the victim" of this situation (instead, the APD/GBA has to "ensure that it uses its resources properly"), and that moreover the APD/GBA failed to demonstrate this affirmation.
The Market Court concluded that the APD/GBA had to re-examine the case.
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.
