Rb. Zeeland-West-Brabant - AWB- 21 1058
| Rb. Zeeland-West-Brabant - AWB- 21_1058 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | Rb. Zeeland-West-Brabant (Netherlands) |
| Jurisdiction: | Netherlands |
| Relevant Law: | Article 12(2) GDPR Article 15(1) GDPR Article 3:13 of the Dutch Civil Code Article 3:15 of the Dutch Civil Code Article 4:15 AwB Article 4:5 AwB |
| Decided: | 14.10.2022 |
| Published: | 19.10.2022 |
| Parties: | Claimant The municipal executive of Sluis municipality |
| National Case Number/Name: | AWB- 21_1058 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2022:5975 |
| Appeal from: | |
| Appeal to: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | Dutch |
| Original Source: | Court ruling (in Dutch) |
| Initial Contributor: | J.P. Folkers |
The District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant ruled that using the right to access in an attempt to gain monetary compensation for excess waiting times qualifies as abuse of rights, especially when the controller holds no personal data on the claimant.
English Summary
Facts
Claimant made an access request to the municipality of Sluis on 18 August 2020, which the municipality received on 19 August 2020. The municipality responded on 24 September that they found no personal data related to the claimant, and requested the claimant to specify it's request by 9 October 2020, suspending the request until that date. On 28 October 2020, the municipality officially denied the request.
The municipality received a letter on 29 September 2020, from the claimant, requesting the municipality of Sluis to fulfill the access request and taking the point of view that the municipality has exceeded the deadline. Claimant sent another letter on 12 November 2020, requesting the municipality to make a decision based on the letter of 29 September, again asking to fulfill the access request.
The municipality received a formal objection on 22 December 2020 from the claimant for not taking a penalty decision on time, requesting the municipality to take a penalty decision and to determine the penalty to be forfeit to the claimant.
By decision on 19 January 2021, the municipality of Sluis decided that no penalty is to be forfeited due to any decisions not made in a timely manner. The municipality also sent the notice of objection to the court to treat as appeal.
Holding
The court initially ruled the appeal inadmissible as the court fee had not been paid on 27 July 2021. Claimant objected to this based on the inability to pay the fee, which was upheld on 17 September 2021. The initial ruling had not decided on this matter.
The court ruled that the case was inadmissible because of abuse of law. Claimant had made access requests to six other municipalities, for which the claimant also claimed penalty decisions. On top of this, no clear purpose of the access request can be deduced. Claimant was not known in the municipality of Sluis. Claimant never objected to the decision to deny the access request from 28 October 2020.
Since claimant only made an access request and the subsequent penalty decision request for monetary gains, claimant abused legal instruments. The appeal is ruled as inadmissible as a result.
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.
COURT OF THE HAGUE Administrative law case number: SGR 21/7902 judgment of the single chamber of 28 September 2022 in the case between [claimant], from [place of residence], claimant and the Municipal Executive of The Hague, (defendant). Process sequence By decision of 5 October 2021 (the primary decision), the respondent decided on the claimant's request for access and provided the claimant with an overview of the processing of his personal data. By decision of 6 December 2021 (the contested decision), the defendant declared the objection of the plaintiff inadmissible. The court informed the parties that it did not consider a hearing necessary and asked whether they agree. Because the parties did not request a hearing afterwards, the court closed the investigation and did not hear the case at a hearing. Considerations What is this case about? 1. On June 30, 2021, the Plaintiff requested access1 to the personal data processed about him by the Haaglanden Care and Safety House. With the primary decision, the defendant provided the plaintiff with an overview of the personal data that were processed about him. The defendant also informed the plaintiff with which chain partners the data was exchanged and to which period the processing of the personal data relates. Plaintiff has objected to that decision, because he wants a notification stated in the overview to be withdrawn. The defendant has declared the objection manifestly inadmissible because the plaintiff has not put forward any grounds relating to the primary decision. What does the plaintiff think? 2. The claimant argues that the report to the Care and Safety House was wrongly made and asks the court to reverse the report or to instruct the defendant to do so. What is the court's verdict? 3.1. Someone who lodges an objection or appeal must have sufficient legal interest in a substantive assessment of the appeal. Procedural interest is the interest that the person submitting an objection or appeal has in the outcome of a procedure. The issue here is whether the objective envisaged by the petitioner can be achieved by the remedy and whether it is of factual significance to the petitioner. In principle, the applicant who contests a decision has an interest in bringing proceedings in an assessment of his objection or appeal, unless it is established that any interest in the proceedings is lacking or has lapsed.2 If there is no interest in bringing proceedings, the objection or appeal will be declared inadmissible. 3.2. The claimant has asked the respondent to provide him with access to the personal data that the Haaglanden Care and Safety House has processed in its data system. Defendant gave access by providing Plaintiff with an overview of the personal data. The claimant has not stated on appeal why he believes that the respondent has insufficiently fulfilled his right of access. 3.3. With a substantive assessment of this appeal, the Plaintiff cannot be in a more favorable position with regard to his right of access under the GDPR. After all, he has been given the access he requested and has not raised any grounds against it. This means that the plaintiff has no interest in bringing proceedings. 3.4. The court found no other interest in bringing proceedings. The fact that the claimant does not agree with the report that was made about him to the Haaglanden Care and Safety House and that he wants the report to be removed does not change that. That is outside the scope of the dispute. After all, the Plaintiff has only requested access to his personal data with his request. Conclusion and consequences 4. The appeal is inadmissible. This means that the court will not assess whether the defendant has rightly declared the claimant's objection inadmissible. The claimant therefore does not get the court fee back. He will also not be reimbursed for his legal costs. Decision The court declared the appeal inadmissible. This judgment was made by mr. D. Biever, judge, in the presence of Y.E. de Loos, clerk. The decision was pronounced in public on September 28, 2022. clerk judge A copy of this ruling has been sent to the parties at: Information about appeal A party that does not agree with this ruling can send a notice of appeal to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, explaining why this party does not agree with this ruling. The appeal must be filed within six weeks of the date on which this decision was sent. If the petitioner cannot await the hearing of the appeal because the case is urgent, the petitioner can request the preliminary relief judge of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State to take an interim injunction (a temporary measure). 1 Pursuant to Article 15(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2 See, for example, the decision of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State of 31 August 2022, ECLI:NL:RVS:2022:2531.
