APD/GBA (Belgium) - 42/2022
|APD/GBA - DOS-2021-05022
|Article 6(1)(f) GDPR
Article 15 GDPR
Act of 3 December 2017 establishing the Data Protection Authority
|Mr X - unknown
Federal Public Service Finance, with its registered office at 33/014 Boulevard du Roi Albert II, with company number 0308.357.159,
|National Case Number/Name:
|European Case Law Identifier:
|Autorité Protection Données (in NL)
"Comparables" can be considered personal data and therefore a legal basis is required to process or provide this information to third parties Article 6(1)(f)
The Disputes Chamber proceeds to dismiss claim: The Disputes Chamber finds that the complaint does not concern any processing of personal data concerning the complainant or affecting the complainant according to the specific criteria developed by the Disputes Chamber.
English Summary[edit | edit source]
Facts[edit | edit source]
The subject of the complaint concerns the refusal by the Patrimony Documentation Department of the FPS Finance Roeselare to submit the cadastral income of third-party properties as comparables to the complainant. Specifically, an individual brings the case against Federal Public Service Finance.
The complainant states that the FPS Finance did not communicate to him comparables for the recording of the cadastral income of his property. According to the complainant, he was not informed that such communication is a legal obligation.
FPS Finance maintains its position, as "comparables" can be considered personal data and therefore a legal basis is required to process or provide this information to third parties. Specifically, the communication of comparables has its legal basis under Article 6(1)(f)
Holding[edit | edit source]
The Disputes Chamber proceeds to dismiss the complaint in accordance with article 95 , § 1, 3° WOG, giving three motives underlying its decision as to why it does not wish to pursue the case in question. The Disputes Chamber finds that the complaint does not concern any processing of personal data concerning the complainant or affecting the complainant according to the specific criteria developed by the Disputes Chamber. Furthermore: the Disputes Chamber brings forward the fact that a request for inspection under Article 15 GDPR cannot lead to or be misused for the purpose of disclosing personal data of third parties. To this end, the Disputes Chamber stipulates that it cannot conclude that there has been a breach of the GDPR and data protection regulations.
Moreover, the files brought by the complaint concerns an ancillary dispute with the defendant, concerning the calculation of the cadastral income of a property owned by the complainant, to which the Disputes Chamber concludes that its intervention is not necessary and that the main dispute should be brought before a competent court.
Comment[edit | edit source]
Share your comments here!
Further Resources[edit | edit source]
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision[edit | edit source]
The decision below is a machine translation of the Dutch original. Please refer to the Dutch original for more details.
File number : DOS-2021-05022 Subject : Complaint regarding the refusal to calculate the cadastral income of immovable property communicate third-party goods as points of comparison The Dispute 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 on the free movement of such data and revocation of Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), hereinafter GDPR; In view of the law 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 January 15, 2019; Having regard to the documents in the file; has made the following decision regarding: The complainant: Mr X, hereinafter referred to as “the complainant” The defendant: Federal Public Service Finance, with registered office in Koning Albert II-laan 33/014, with company number 0308.357.159, hereinafter “de defendant” Decision 42/2022 - 2/5 I. Facts and procedure 1. On 2 June 2021, the complainant lodges a complaint with the Data Protection Authority against defendant. The subject of the complaint concerns the refusal by the service Heritage documentation from the FPS Finance Roeselare to determine the cadastral income of real estate belonging to third parties as points of comparison to the complainant. 2. mr. X complains that the FPS Finance Roeselare does not give him any points of comparison for the recording of the cadastral income of his immovable property good. More specifically, the complainant alleges that he was not informed that this communication was administration would be a legal obligation. 3. The complainant addresses the Federal Ombudsman on April 28, 2021, who will contact him on June 8, 2021 let it be known that the FPS Finance is sticking to its position, since points of comparison such as personal data and therefore a legal basis is required to process or provide this information to third parties. 4. Indeed, the administration argues that the communication of points of comparison rests on the basis provided under Article 6.1.f GDPR, and Mr. X in this case no legitimate interest can demonstrate for what purpose he could obtain this information, in particular pursuant to his statement of agreement dated. January 10, 2019 —as a result of which the cadastral income of his real estate has been definitively established and can no longer be disputed. 5. On September 27, 2021, the complaint will be declared admissible by the Frontline Service on pursuant to Articles 58 and 60 WOG and the complaint pursuant to art. 62, 1 WOG submitted to the Disputes Chamber. II. Justification 6. On the basis of the elements in the file known to the Disputes Chamber, and on the basis of the powers conferred on it by the legislator on the basis of Article 95, § 1 WOG allocated, the Disputes Chamber decides on the further follow-up of the file; in this case the Disputes Chamber will dismiss the complaint in accordance with Article 95, § 1, 3° WOG, on the basis of the following motivation. 7. When a complaint is dismissed, the Disputes Chamber must make its decision to motivate step by step en1 : - to pronounce a technical dismissal if the file is not or not contains sufficient elements that could lead to a conviction, or if there 1 Brussels Court of Appeal, Section Marktenhof, 19th Chamber A, Market Affairs Chamber, Judgment 2020/AR/329, 2 September 2020, p. 18. Decision 42/2022 - 3/5 there is insufficient prospect of a conviction for a technical impediment, which prevents her from reaching a decision; - or to issue a policy dismissal, if despite the presence of elements that may lead to a sanction, the continuation of the investigation of the file 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 Chamber2 . 8. In the event that more than one ground is being discarded, the discarded grounds (resp. technical dismissal and policy dismissal) in order of importance3 . 9. In the present file, the Disputes Chamber will dismiss the complaint, on the basis of both grounds. There are three motives at the basis of the decision of the Disputes Chamber why it considers it undesirable to follow up further to the file and therefore decided not to proceed to, inter alia, a treatment against ground. 10. First of all, the Disputes Chamber understands that the complainant tries to obtain access to so-called points of comparison, including the address of third-party reference parcels, of which the there is no doubt that these should be regarded as personal data within the meaning of Article 4 of the GDPR. Thus, on the basis of the submitted documents, the Disputes Chamber establishes that the complaint does not relate to a processing of personal data concerning the complainant or that concern the complainant according to the specific criteria set out by the Dispute chamber have been developed4 . In addition, the Disputes Chamber reminds that it is right of access to personal data only refers to personal data concerning the requesting data subject, in this case the taxpayer, and the GDPR expressly provides in an exception to obtaining a copy of personal data if it communication would prejudice the rights and freedoms of others5 . In short, a request for access under Article 15 GDPR cannot lead to or be misused with the with a view to the disclosure of personal data of third parties. 11. Secondly, the Disputes Chamber decides that on the basis of the facts as well as the legal grievances raised cannot reach the conclusion that there is a breach of the GDPR and data protection regulations6 . The complaint should 2 In this regard, the Disputes Chamber refers to its dismissal policy as set out in detail on the GBA's website: https://www.dataprotectionauthority.be/publications/sepotbeleid-van-de-geschillenkamer.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. 4 Cf. criterion A.5. in the dismissal policy of the Disputes Chamber. 5 Article 15.3 GDPR: “The right to obtain a copy referred to in paragraph 3 is without prejudice to the rights and freedoms of others.". See also EDPB – Guidelines 01/2022 on data subject rights – Right of access (v1.0, 18 January 2022), para. 46 and 104-106. 6 Cf. criterion A.2. in the dismissal policy of the Disputes Chamber. Decision 42/2022 - 4/5 therefore to be regarded as manifestly unfounded within the meaning of Article 57.4 of the GDPR. 12. Finally, and in a subordinate order, it is apparent from the submitted documents and explanation of the complainant that the complaint concerns an ancillary dispute with the defendant, regarding the calculation of the cadastral income of the complainant's real estate. Mindful of this judges the Disputes Chamber that its intervention is not strictly necessary in this case and that it is the complainant is opportune to file a request with the appropriate court or jurisdiction has on all elements of the main dispute7 . III. Publication of the decision 13. Given the importance of transparency in the decision-making of the Litigation Chamber, this decision is published on the website of the Data Protection Authority. However, it is not necessary for the the complainant's identification details are disclosed directly. 14. In accordance with its dismissal policy, the Disputes Chamber will pass the decision to the defendant transfer8 . After all, the Disputes Chamber has decided to cancel its dismissal decisions to notify the defendants ex officio. However, the Disputes Chamber waives such notice when the complainant has requested anonymity from of the defendant(s) and notification of the decision to the defendant(s), even if it is pseudonymised, nevertheless makes it possible to (re)identify9 . However, this is not the case in the present case. Pursuant to Article 108, § 1 of the WOG, within a period of thirty days from the notice against this decision, an appeal may be lodged with the Marktenhof (Court of Appeal Brussels), with the Data Protection Authority as defendant. 7 Cf. criterion B.3. in the dismissal policy of the Disputes Chamber. 8 Cf. Title 5 – Will the dismissal of my complaint be published? Will the counterparty be notified? of the Disputes Chamber's dismissal policy. 9 Ibid. FOR THESE REASONS, the Disputes Chamber of the Data Protection Authority decides, after deliberation, to: - to dismiss this complaint on the basis of Article 95, § 1, 3° of the WOG; - to provide the defendant with a copy of the present decision. Decision 42/2022 - 5/5 To enable the complainant to consider other possible remedies, the Disputes Chamber the complainant to the explanation in its dismissal policy10 . (Get). Hielke HIJMANS Chairman of the Disputes Chamber