Banner1.jpg

Rb. Den Haag - SGR 22/2863

From GDPRhub
Revision as of 15:02, 22 January 2025 by Jaslvl4 (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{COURTdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Netherlands |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png |Court_Abbrevation=Rb. Den Haag |Court_Original_Name=Rechtbank Den Haag |Court_English_Name=District Court Den Haag |Court_With_Country=Rb. Den Haag (Netherlands) |Case_Number_Name=SGR 22/2863 |ECLI=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:21898 |Original_Source_Name_1=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:21898 |Original_Source_Link_1=https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:21898&showbutton=true...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Rb. Den Haag - SGR 22/2863
Courts logo1.png
Court: Rb. Den Haag (Netherlands)
Jurisdiction: Netherlands
Relevant Law: Article 15(4) GDPR
Article 7(6)(i) Regeling inzage- en correctierecht UWV 2018
Article 8:29 Awb
Decided: 23.11.2023
Published: 28.12.2024
Parties:
National Case Number/Name: SGR 22/2863
European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:21898
Appeal from:
Appeal to: Unknown
Original Language(s): Dutch
Original Source: ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:21898 (in Dutch)
Initial Contributor: Jaslvl4

The data subject launched an appeal seeking access to an anonymous tip that led to an investigation into her benefits. The court upheld the initial refusal, citing Article 7(6)(i) UWV 2018 Regulation on Access and Correction, based on Article 15(4) GDPR.

English Summary

Facts

In the decision leading to the appeal, the Dutch Employee Insurance Agency (‘the controller’) refused to grant the data subject access to an anonymous tip, which led to an investigation into their sickness (ZW) benefits.

The investigation revealed that the data subject had failed to comply with the duty to provide information, resulting in the recovery of €6,010 in unlawfully paid ZW benefits and a fine of €253.33. Following the request of their file, the data subject received all documents except the anonymous tip.

The controller argued that the data subject’s interests were not harmed by the tip, stating that it was the investigation, not the anonymous tip, which constituted the direct cause for the recovery and the fine. Article 7(6)(i) of the ‘Regeling inzage en correctierecht UWV 2018’ (‘the Regulation’), based on the GDPR, further allows for the controller to deny the data subject’s request to access where this is necessary and proportionate to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

The data subject claimed ongoing harassment by an anonymous tipster, involvement in the childcare benefits scandal, issues with national institutions, privacy violations by the controller, and finally, an intent to initiate civil proceedings against the tipster.

The controller responded by clarifying that the tipster wished to remain anonymous, constituting a situation where the general public interest in maintaining anonymity and ensuring continued reporting outweighs the personal interest of the data subject.

Holding

The Court ruled that the controller’s decision to deny the data subject’s request is justified.

The Court recognised that under Article 7(6)(i) of the Regulation (based on the GDPR), a request for access may be partially or fully denied if it is necessary and proportionate to protect the rights and freedoms of others. Thereby, the tipster’s anonymity and the public interest in maintaining such anonymity outweighed the data subject’s interest in disclosure, as the investigation led to the benefit recovery, not the tip.

Other claims, including harassment by anonynous tipsters and privacy violations by the controller, were deemed irrelevant to the decision.

The appeal was dismissed and the data subject’s arguments were rejected.

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.

Content indication
Inspection of anonymous tip, unfounded

Text
THE HAGUE DISTRICT COURT

Administrative law

case number: SGR 22/2863

judgment of the single-judge chamber of 23 November 2023 in the case between
[plaintiff], from [place of residence], plaintiff
(authorized representative: Mr. S.V. Hendriksen),

and

the Board of Directors of the Employee Insurance Agency, defendant

(authorized representative: Mr. M.A. Brouwer).

Introduction
With the decision of 25 October 2022 (the primary decision), defendant refused to give plaintiff access to an anonymous tip as a result of which an investigation into plaintiff's benefit took place.

With the contested decision of 17 March 2022 on plaintiff's objection, defendant upheld that decision.

Plaintiff has appealed against the contested decision.

The defendant requested the court to determine, on the basis of article 8:29 of the General Administrative Law Act (Awb), that only the court will take cognizance of the anonymous tip.

On 29 December 2022, the court ruled that the request for limited cognizance was justified and agreed to the request.

The defendant responded to the appeal with a statement of defence.

The court heard the appeal at a hearing on 31 August 2023. The plaintiff, assisted by her authorised representative, and the defendant's authorised representative appeared at the hearing.

Formation of the decision
1.1.
The plaintiff received a benefit from the defendant under the Sickness Benefits Act (ZW). The defendant received information from an anonymous tipster, as a result of which an investigation into the plaintiff's benefit was initiated. The investigation showed (as established in law) that the plaintiff had not complied with the duty to provide information. This resulted in a recovery of €6,010 in undue paid-out ZW benefits and a fine of €253.33.

1.2.
The claimant requested the defendant to inspect her file. She received all documents with the exception of the anonymous tip in connection with the interest of others in not inspecting that tip.

2. In the contested decision, the defendant declared the objection unfounded. The defendant states that the claimant's interests were not harmed by the tip because the tip as such did not result in the recovery and fine. The tip led to an investigation which showed that the claimant violated her duty to provide information by not reporting her 2016 income. According to the defendant, the reason for initiating the investigation is not relevant. On the basis of article 7 paragraph 6 sub i of the Regulation on the right of access and correction UWV 2018 (the Regulation), the defendant rejected the request because this was necessary and proportionate in the interest of protecting the data subjects or the rights and freedoms of others.

The positions of the parties
3. The claimant states on appeal that she has been plagued by an anonymous tipster for some time. As a result, the claimant has serious problems with various authorities and, for example, she is on the Fraud Signaling Provision list (FSV list) and is a victim of the child benefit affair. Her husband and mother have also been placed on this FSV list. The claimant states that she therefore has a particularly great interest in the disclosure of the identity of the tipster. She wants to initiate civil proceedings against the tipster. She states that in this case, anonymity must be lifted because there is an exception to the article mentioned by the defendant. According to the claimant, the defendant disregards her interest in access. In addition, the defendant has now also violated various privacy rules, which means that it cannot be maintained that he is allowed to keep the identity of the tipster secret, according to the plaintiff.

4. The defendant states that the plaintiff is not harmed in her interests by not submitting the anonymous tip. The tipster has indicated that she wants to remain anonymous. The content of the tip is such that its publication could harm the personal privacy of the tipster. The privacy interest of the tipster is offset by the plaintiff's interest in gathering sufficient evidence for a civil case. The general interest of public funds also weighs in; if the anonymity of tipsters is not guaranteed, the threshold for providing tips will be higher. However, the plaintiff's interest is not an interest that can be taken into account in a request for access on the basis of the Regulation, according to the defendant. In this context, the defendant states that this can be compared to a request for disclosure as referred to in the Open Government Act (Woo).

Assessment by the court
5.1
Article 7, paragraph 6, under i, of the Regulation (based on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)) stipulates that a request for access will be refused in whole or in part to the extent that this is necessary and proportionate in the interest of protecting the data subject or the rights and freedoms of others.

5.2.
The informant has indicated that he/she wishes to remain anonymous. Furthermore, the content of the tip is such that it could possibly be used to determine the identity of the informant, which means that access to the tip could harm the interest of protecting the informant. Refusal to access the tip is therefore necessary.

5.3.
The privacy interest of the informant is offset by the interest of the claimant in being able to institute civil proceedings. Contrary to what the defendant believes, the personal interest of the claimant is an interest that can (must) be taken into account in a request for access on the basis of the Regulation. The Woo, considering the public interest in the disclosure of requested information, does not apply to the claimant's request, since a specific arrangement based on the GDPR has been drawn up for this purpose. However, since the recovery of the claimant's benefit is not the direct result of the anonymous tip, but of the outcome of the investigation that was conducted afterwards, the privacy interest of the tipster and, by extension, the interest of the defendant in continuing to receive tips must outweigh the claimant's interest in access. Refusal of access to the tip is therefore also proportionate.

5.4.
As regards the other alleged consequences of the actions of the anonymous tipster (at other agencies), it must be noted that it is not disputed between the parties that various anonymous tips about the claimant have been given to various agencies. To what extent these tips originate from one and the same tipster and have had the far-reaching consequences alleged by the claimant - as the claimant assumes - cannot be determined in these proceedings and can therefore not form part of the balancing of interests for the claimant's request.

5.5.
The fact that the defendant also violated privacy rules – whatever the case may be – is not a circumstance that can change the weighing of interests.

5.6.
All of the above leads to the conclusion that the defendant rightly rejected the plaintiff's request.

Conclusion and consequences
6. The appeal is unfounded. This means that the plaintiff is not in the right. The plaintiff will therefore not get the court fee back. She will also not receive compensation for her legal costs.

Decision
The court declares the appeal unfounded.

This decision was made by Mr. N.E.M. de Coninck, judge, in the presence of Mr. S.R. Veili, clerk. The judgment was pronounced in public on 23 November 2023.

registrar

judge

A copy of this judgment was sent to the parties on:

Information about appeal
A party that disagrees with this judgment may send an appeal to the Central Appeals Tribunal explaining why this party disagrees with this judgment. The appeal must be filed within six weeks after the date on which this judgment was sent. If the submitter cannot await the hearing of the appeal because the case is urgent, the submitter may request the provisional relief judge of the Central Appeals Tribunal to make an interim provision (a temporary measure).