APD/GBA - 80/2020

From GDPRhub
APD/GBA - 80/2020
LogoBE.png
Authority: APD/GBA (Belgium)
Jurisdiction: Belgium
Relevant Law:
95 WOG
98 WOG
47 RIO
Type: Complaint
Outcome: Rejected
Decided: 17.09.2020
Published: 17.09.2020
Fine: None
Parties: n/a
National Case Number/Name: 80/2020
European Case Law Identifier: n/a
Appeal: Unknown
Original Language(s): Dutch
Original Source: autoriteprotectiondonnees.be (in NL)
Initial Contributor: n/a

The Belgian DPA (APD/GBA) dismissed a complaint regarding the use of surveillance cameras in a car wash due to a procedural defect. The plaintiff, who wished to remain anonymous, lacked any personal interest in the issue raised.

English Summary[edit | edit source]

Facts[edit | edit source]

The complaint concerns the use of surveillance cameras placed in a car wash. The plaintiff was not the data subject neither an authorized person on his behalf. He also wished his identity to remain unknown.

Dispute[edit | edit source]

May a party remain anonymous at the substantive stage of a procedure? May a person other than the data subject lodge a complaint?

Holding[edit | edit source]

The person lodging a complaint may request that it be dealt with anonymously. Such possibility of an anonymous complaint is expressly provided for in Article 95, §2, 2° WOG (which concerns the procedure prior to a decision on the merits) and in Article 98 WOG (which concerns the substantive stage of the procedure) also refers. The Litigation Chamber therefore accepted the request for anonymous complaint-handling, and adapted its course of action accordingly.

However, the Litigation Chamber found that the handling of the complaint was affected by a procedural defect. It agreed with the defendant’s argument that the complaint should have been dismissed pursuant to Article 47 of the Rules of Internal Order, who provides that the identity of the plaintiff shall not be automatically revealed to the other party when there is a serious risk that such disclosure would lead to adverse consequences. For those cases where such a “serious risk” does not appear to exist but the plaintiff himself has requested anonymity, the express consent of the plaintiff must be sought to reveal his identity to the other party. If the plaintiff does not agree, the complaint must be deemed to have been lodged to be closed with no further action. In this case, not only was the risk assessment not carried out, but the complaint was not dismissed as soon as the plaintiff indicated that he wished to remain anonymous.

The AVG does not prevent a person other than the data subject from lodging a complaint with the national data protection authority. Article 58 of the WOG allows any person to lodge a complaint, provided that she has a sufficient interest in doing so.

In this respect, the Litigation Chamber found that the plaintiff did not have any personal interest (the defendant was not processing personal data relating to him) but merely referred to a public interest (i.e. the protection of the privacy rights of every citizen to be informed about the use of the camera images when making use of the services of a carwash). According to the Belgian DPA, the mere pursuit of such a public interest could not be considered sufficient.

The Litigation Chamber therefore decided to dismiss the complaint.

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.

                                                                                             1/12











                                                                           Litigation chamber



                                    Decision on the merits 80/2020 of 17 September

                                    2020











File number: DOS-2019-02262



Subject: Camera surveillance in a car wash





The Disputes Chamber of the Data Protection Authority, composed of Mr Hielke

Hijmans, chairman and Messrs Jelle Stassijns and Frank De Smet, members;



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;



In view of the law of 3 December 2017 establishing the Data Protection Authority, hereinafter

WOG;



Having regard to the rules of internal procedure, as approved by the Chamber of

Representatives on December 20, 2018 and published in the Belgian Official Gazette on

January 15, 2019;



Considering the documents in the file;







                                                                                                      .

                                                                                                      .

                                                                                                      . Decision on the merits 80/2020 - 2/12



has taken the following decision regarding:



    - The complainant who wishes to remain anonymous, hereinafter “the complainant”:

    - Y, hereinafter “the defendant”




    1. Facts and procedure

1. On April 16, 2019, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Data Protection Authority against

    defendant.




    The subject of the complaint concerns the use made of surveillance cameras

    placed in the defendant's car wash. This camera surveillance would nowhere be indicated

    by means of pictograms and would not have been stated in the privacy statement as published

    on the defendant's website, so that the data subject does not have information about the

    exercising his rights in this regard. The video images and photos would be used

    as a burden of proof with regard to a data subject (other than the complainant), Ms Z, in order to support his

    to prove wrong via Facebook. Without the consent of the person concerned, photos on the

    The defendant's Facebook page has been posted, showing the number plates of cars from

    customers would have been seen, as well as employees. The complainant suspects that the

    images are kept without any time limit, without mentioning that the

    those involved are filmed / photographed and thus without respecting the new

    camera legislation. The surveillance cameras would be present in the entire company of the

    defendant, both in the car wash itself and on the first floor where people leave their car

    vacuuming without any indication thereof by means of a pictogram.



2. On 6 August 2019, the complaint will be declared admissible on the basis of Articles 58 and 60

    WOG, the complainant will be informed of this on the basis of art. 61 WOG and the complaint is put on

    based on art. 62, §1 WOG submitted to the Disputes Chamber.



3. On 23 August 2019, the Disputes Chamber will decide on the basis of art. 63, 2 ° and 94, 1 ° WOG one

    request an investigation from the Inspectorate.



4. On 23 August 2019, in accordance with art. 96, §1 WOG the request of the Disputes Chamber

    to carry out an investigation submitted to the Inspectorate, together with the complaint

    and the official record of that decision.



5. On 19 November 2019, the investigation by the Inspectorate will be completed, the report will be

    attached to the file and the file is forwarded by the Inspector General to the

    Chairman of the Disputes Chamber (art. 91, §1 and §2 WOG). Decision on the merits 80/2020 - 3/12






    The report contains findings with regard to the subject of the complaint and concludes that:

        1. the defendant has not complied with the obligations under Article 6, §2, al. 5 and

             Article 9 of the Camera Act 1

        2. there is a serious indication that article 6, § 2, al. 4 of the aforementioned law has not been complied with.



6. In addition, the report contains findings that go beyond the subject of the complaint. The

    The Inspectorate has established, in outline, that:

        1. the defendant fulfills the obligations under art. 31 has not complied with the GDPR;


        2. the defendant fulfills the obligations imposed by art. 9 of CLA no. 682

             complied with;

        3. there is a serious indication that art. 30 GDPR has not been complied with.

        There are serious indications that article 12.1 GDPR has not been complied with.




7. On December 16, 2019, the Disputes Chamber will decide on the basis of art. 95, §1, 1 ° and art. 98 WOG

    that the file is ready for consideration on the merits.



    The Disputes Chamber decides to divide the file on the basis of the report of the Inspection Service

    in two separate cases:

         1. Pursuant to art. 92, 1 ° WOG, the Disputes Chamber will make a decision on the merits with

             with regard to the subject of the complaint

         2. Pursuant to art. 92, 3 ° the Disputes Chamber will take a decision on the merits to


             as a result of the findings made by the Inspection Service outside the

             scope of the complaint.




8. On December 16, 2019, the parties involved will be notified by registered mail

    of the provisions as stated in article 95, §2, as well as of those in art. 98 WOG. Also be

    they pursuant to art. 99 WOG of the time limits to file their defenses

    serve.

    With regard to the findings with regard to the subject of the complaint, the extreme

    date for receipt of the defendant's statement of response set at January 30

    2020, this for the reply of the complainant 12 working days after receipt of the

    statement of defense of the defendant and finally that for the statement of reply of

    the defendant on 12 working days after receipt of the complainant's reply.




11
  Law of 21 March 2007 regulating the placement and use of surveillance cameras
2 Collective employment contract no. 68 of 16 June 1998 concluded in the National Labor Council, concerning protection
of the privacy of the employees in relation to the camera surveillance at the workplace. Decision on the merits 80/2020 - 4/12



    With regard to the findings that go beyond the subject of the complaint, the ultimate

    date for receipt of the defendant's statement of response set at the same

    date as determined for the defendant's final statement of reply.




9. On January 2, 2020, the defendant electronically accepts all communications regarding the case and

    he indicates that he wishes to make use of the opportunity to be heard, one and

    other in accordance with article 98 of the WOG.



10. On January 30, 2020, the Disputes Chamber will receive the statement of defense from the

    defendant with regard to the findings with regard to the subject of the complaint



11. Since the complainant wishes to remain anonymous, the Disputes Chamber will notify him on January 31, 2020

    the statement of defense that the defendant has submitted. In response to this

    however, the Disputes Chamber did not receive a statement of reply from the complainant.



12. On February 24, 2020, the Disputes Chamber will receive the statement of reply from the defendant.

    This resumes with regard to the findings with regard to the subject of the complaint

    the means and reasoning developed in the statement of defense. This conclusion

    also contains the respondent's response to the findings made by the

    Inspection services were done outside the scope of the complaint.



13. On October 23, 2020, the Parties will be notified that the hearing will take place

    on December 9, 2020.



14. On December 1, 2020, the complainant reports to the Disputes Chamber that he wishes to participate anonymously

    participate in the hearing. The Disputes Chamber answered that anonymous participation

    a hearing is not possible. The complainant responded by stating that

    he does not wish to give up his anonymity and therefore does not wish to participate.

    At the request of the Disputes Chamber for an explanation of its interest with regard to the complaint,

    the complainant replies that he has no personal interest, only a public interest.



15. On December 9, 2020, the parties will be heard by the Disputes Chamber.



16. On December 11, 2020, the minutes of the hearing will be presented to the defendant.



17. On December 17, 2020, the Disputes Chamber will receive some comments from the defendant

    with regard to the official report, which she decides to include in her deliberation. Decision on the merits 80/2020 - 5/12







    2. Justification




I. Jurisdiction of the Disputes Chamber



18. The Disputes Chamber states that the complaint relates to the processing of personal data


    both of the customers and of the personnel of the defendant to whom the GDPR applies

    is applicable.



19. As set out in its Decision 17/2020, 3, the Disputes Chamber is a body of the


    Data Protection Authority (hereinafter: DPA), established under Article 4 (1) of the WOG, with

    a certain autonomy and takes its decisions completely independently. The GBA is in Belgium

    the authority responsible for verifying compliance with the GDPR within the meaning of

    Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 16 of the Treaty

    on the functioning of the European Union and Article 51 of the GDPR. This check by the GBA


    and its Dispute Chamber is an essential element for the protection of individuals in the

    processing of personal data, as organized in particular by the GDPR.



20. Under Articles 51.1, 51.2 and 52.1 of the GDPR, Member States must have one or more

    independent authorities to supervise the application of the GDPR in order to thus reduce the


    freedoms and fundamental rights of natural persons during processing, and to protect the

    allow free movement of personal data within the Union. These control authorities

    must exercise their powers for the effective application of the

    European law on data protection, including the GDPR. Insuring


    of the effectiveness of European law is one of the most important tasks of the authorities
                                                                  5
    of the Member States according to European Union law.



21. They must exercise fundamental rights regarding the protection of personal data

    enable. Control authorities should play an active role to this end through


    assignments and powers they receive under Articles 57 and 58 of the GDPR. So must

    for example, pursuant to Article 57.2 of the GDPR, any supervisory authority can submit complaints

    by an involved person or by an organism. It makes sense then







3 Published on the GBA website.

4 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 47–390.
5 th
  See Koen Lenaerts, Piet Van Nuffel, European law edition), Intersentia, 2017, pp 95-100, and more specifically about the
data protection authorities, Hielke Hijmans, The European Union as Guardian of Internet Privacy, Springer 2016,
Chapter 7. Decision on the merits 80/2020 - 6/12




    the handling of this complaint must and must enable the exercise of rights

    contribute to better control of citizens over their own personal data.




22. All this has been elaborated in national legislation in the WOG. The Marktenhof has that

    emphasizes that in Belgian law the GBA (and a fortiori the Dispute Chamber) should become

    classified as an administrative authority and not as a judicial body.



23. In summary, the supervision by the Disputes Chamber is not primarily aimed at resolving


    disputes between parties, but is one of the instruments of the GBA to supervise the

    compliance with data protection rules, in accordance with the provisions of the

    EU Treaties, the GDPR and the WOG.



24. Since in the present complaint the customers and employees of the defendant become

    subject to CCTV, the CCTV Act and CLA no.


    68.



25. The Disputes Chamber is authorized to hear not only the findings made by

    the Inspectorate regarding compliance by the defendant with the GDPR, but also with this

    regarding the Camera Act and the CAO no. 68. The report of the investigation carried out by the

    The Inspectorate explains that the GBA is authorized to act on the basis of Article 6 of the CCTV Act

    “Violations of the basic principles of the protection of personal data, in the framework


    of this law and of the laws containing provisions on the protection of processing

    to notify the judicial authorities of personal data and, where appropriate,

    to bring legal action to enforce these principles. " Now that the CLA no.

    68 and the Camera Act can be seen as a law (in a material sense) can therefore

    useful determinations are made by the inspection service of the GBA in the light of the

    aforementioned legislation. "



                                                                                                      7
26. The Disputes Chamber adds that on the basis of Article 4, § 1 WOG the

    Data protection authority is responsible for monitoring compliance with the

    basic principles of the protection of personal data, under this law and




6 Collective Labor Agreement No. 68, declared universally binding by Royal Decree of 20 September 1998,
https://www.dataprotectionautoriteit.be/publications/collective-arbeidsactie-nr.-68.pdf and http: //www.cnt-
nar.be/CAO-COORD/cao-068.pdf

7 Art. 4. § 1. The Data Protection Authority is responsible for supervising compliance with the fundamental principles
of the protection of personal data, within the framework of this law and of the laws containing provisions on the
protection of the processing of personal data.

Without prejudice to the powers of the Community or Regional Governments, of the Community or Regional Parliaments,
of the United College or of the United Assembly referred to in article 60 of the special law of January 12, 1989 with
with regard to the Brussels institutions, the Data Protection Authority exercises this task on the territory of
the entire Kingdom, regardless of which national law applies to the processing concerned. Decision on the merits 80/2020 - 7/12



    of the laws containing provisions on the protection of the processing of

    personal data.

    Thus, the competence of the GBA as laid down in article 4, §1 WOG does not leave only the

    Inspectorate to make determinations regarding the law of 21 March 2007 and CLA no.


    68, but this provision also allows the Disputes Chamber as a body of the GBA to apply with respect to

    to proceed to the performance of its own by determining the Inspectorate

    power as it was conferred on it in Articles 92 to 92 inclusive. 108 WOG.





II. Anonymity of the complainant



27. Notwithstanding the fact that the defendant maintains that the complaint should have become without effect

    after the complaint was declared admissible by the

    First-line service decides to continue the investigation of the complaint and file for it

    to submit an investigation to the Inspectorate.



28. The Disputes Chamber has taken note of the complaint in which the complainant indicates that he is anonymous

    want to stay.



29. During the proceedings before the Disputes Chamber, the defendant argues that Article 47 of the

    Regulations of Internal Order provide the following:

    “Art. 47

    […]

    In principle, the identity of the complainant is disclosed.

    However, the identity will not be disclosed in cases where there is a serious risk

    that disclosure of his identity to the counterparty will have adverse consequences for the

    complainant. Where appropriate, the complainant's express consent to his identity

    to disclose, then asked. If the complainant does not agree with the disclosure,

    the complaint is ranked without consequence. "



30. The defendant notes, however, that Article 47 of the Rules of Internal Order belongs to

    “Subsection A: Procedure prior to the decision on the merits (Article 95 WOG)”, however

    is not included in “Subsection B: Procedure for deliberation on the merits (article 98

    WOG) ”and believes that it can be inferred from this that in the main proceedings, as in the present case, neither

    neither the WOG nor the Rules of Internal Order would provide for a party to be in the phase

    the substance can remain unknown and that the clerk's office, where appropriate, the conclusions and documents

    will transfer to the unknown complainant. Decision on the merits 80/2020 - 8/12




31. First of all, the Disputes Chamber explains that article 47 of the Rules of Internal Order also applies

     is applicable during the proceedings on the merits, which is explained by the fact that Article

     98 WOG refers to the application of Article 95, § 2 WOG. Article 98 WOG explicitly requires


     that if the Disputes Chamber decides in application of Article 95, §1, 1 ° WOG that the file

     is ready for consideration on the merits, notify the parties without delay by registered mail

     be set of the provisions as stated in Article 95, §2 of the WOG in which a.o.

     it is stated that the parties concerned must be notified immediately by registered mail

     be informed of the content of the complaint, with the exception of the documents if necessary

     from which the identity of the complainant can be derived.




32. The possibility of anonymous complaint handling is therefore expressly provided for in Article 95, §2, 2 °

     WOG, to which Article 98 WOG also refers as stated above and also applies during

     the treatment on the merits. A different interpretation of the law would make the complainant ineffective

     could be protected from the adverse consequences of lodging a complaint. That

     After all, adverse consequences in the substantive proceedings are of the same nature as in the earlier phase

     of the procedure.




33. This means that the WOG itself already provides that the person submitting a complaint to the anonymous

     request treatment. The Disputes Chamber thus submitted the complainant's request

     to consider anonymous handling of his complaint and has adapted its course of action accordingly

     by providing the modality in which the exchange of claims and documents between them

     parties go through the registry of the Disputes Chamber.




34. The defendant goes on to argue that, in accordance with Article 47 of the

     Rules of Internal Order, should have classified the complaint without consequence, since the complainant

     does not consent to the disclosure of his identity. Neither does the Primary Service according to

     the defendant the criteria set out in Article 47 of the Rules of Internal Order,




8 Art. 95. § 1. The disputes chamber decides on the follow-up it gives to the file and is competent:
 1 ° decide that the file is ready for consideration on the merits;

 2 ° propose a settlement;
 3 ° to dismiss the complaint;
 4 ° formulate warnings;
 5 ° order that the requests of the data subject to exercise his rights be complied with;
 6 ° order that the person concerned is informed of the safety problem;
 7 ° transfer the file to the public prosecutor of the public prosecutor in Brussels, who informs it of the consequences
that is given to the file;

 8 ° decide on a case-by-case basis to publish its decisions on the website of the Data Protection Authority.
 § 2. In the cases mentioned in § 1, 4 ° to 6 °, it shall immediately notify the parties concerned by registered mail
from:
 1 ° the fact that a file is pending;
 2 ° the content of the complaint, with the exception of the documents proving the identity of the person submitting the complaint
can be derived;

 3 ° the possibility of consulting and copying the file at the secretariat of the disputes chamber,
where applicable, with the exception of the documents from which the identity of the person submitting the complaint can be deduced, as well
of the days and hours on which such consultation is possible. Decision on the merits 80/2020 - 9/12



    assessed to be able to handle the complaint anonymously. The defendant argues that the

    Primary care has not analyzed whether or not there was a “serious risk” that

    disclosure of the complainant's identity to the defendant would lead to “adverse

    consequences ”for the complainant.




35. The Disputes Chamber must establish that Article 47 of the Rules of Internal Order

    provides for a review for those cases where there is a serious risk of disclosure

    the identity of the complainant has adverse consequences for him. If such risk emerges

    to be present, his identity is not automatically disclosed to the opposing party.



36. However, in cases where such a risk does not appear to exist and the complainant himself reverses

    anonymity, continues to pursue Article 47 of the Rules of Internal Order

    that in such a case the explicit consent of the complainant is requested for his

    identity to the opposing party. When it turns out that the complainant does not

    agrees, the complaint must therefore be submitted in accordance with Article 47 of the Rules of Internal Order

    to be ranked without consequence.



37. Not only was the risk assessment not made, but the complaint was also omitted without it

    follow-up as soon as the complainant has indicated that he wishes to keep his anonymity

    preserve. The handling of the complaint has thus been affected by a procedural defect. The

    The Disputes Chamber hereby confirms the defendant's arguments that the complaint

    should have become without effect in accordance with Article 47 of the Rules of Internal Order

    arranged.



38. To support the argument that a complainant cannot remain anonymous in the proceedings before the

    The disputes chamber, the defendant also points out that it cannot be seen how a

    unknown party could appeal against the

    decision of the Dispute Chamber, while the defendant can only appeal against the GBA

    as a party, but not against the unknown complainant who then, as the defendant argues, disappears as

    party.



39. The Disputes Chamber understands from this argumentation of the defendant that the defendant believes

    that he could only appeal against the GBA, not against the complainant as he is anonymous

    is. This is in contrast to the complainant who could appeal against both the GBA and the

    defendant, which would be unequal treatment.



40. In that regard, the Disputes Chamber explains that if an appeal is lodged against it

    decision, this appeal is always lodged with the GBA as the defendant, regardless of whether the complainant Decision on the merits 80/2020 - 10/12



    may or may not act anonymously in the proceedings before the Disputes Chamber. The party taking the initiative

    takes to appeal to the Marktenhof will therefore always be confronted with the

    GBA as counterparty. The other party to the proceedings before the Disputes Chamber does not intervene

    the procedure before the Marktenhof, unless it decides to act voluntarily


    intervening party (art. 15 - 16 Judicial Code and art. 812 - 813 Judicial Code).



41. The Disputes Chamber finds that it was caught by the complaint as it became admissible

    stated by the Primary Care Service and that the handling of this complaint did not take place

    in accordance with the procedural requirements laid down in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

    Internal Order.



III. Interest of the complainant



42. The defendant asserts that Article 17 Ger. W. argues that no legal claim can be made

    unless the plaintiff has a capacity and an interest. He adds that in

    criminal cases, although the concerned citizen can file a report, it has some role in the proceedings

    in order to play, an interest and damage must be demonstrated.



43. Although, given the anonymity of the complainant, the defendant does not have any certainty

    on this point, he argues that the complainant in the present case is unlikely to have any interest or damage, because the complainant

    is not, he presumes, Mrs. Z, whose data was published on Facebook, and

    the financial conviction that the complainant insists on accrues to the Treasury (Article 107

    WOG).



44. With regard to the interest on the part of the complainant, the Disputes Chamber points out the following:



    First of all, the Disputes Chamber emphasizes that article 17 Ger. W. not directly applicable

    is in the context of proceedings within the Data Protection Authority,

    but should be assessed in the context of an appeal procedure for

    the Marktenhof against one of its decisions.



45. Article 58 WOG states, however: “Anyone can submit a complaint in writing, dated and signed or

    submit a 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 ”. Decision on the merits 80/2020 - 11/12






46. The preparatory work of the WOG stipulates: ”The Data Protection Authority

    can receive complaints or requests from anyone; natural persons but also

    legal persons, associations or institutions that have an alleged infringement of the Regulation

    wish to sue. Submit a complaint or request to the Data Protection Authority

    in writing, dated and signed by the authorized person. A request

    must be interpreted in the broad sense of the word (request for information or clarification,

                                         9
    a request for mediation, ...) ”.



47. The WOG therefore does not exclude the possibility that a person other than the data subject or the person referred by the

    the person concerned is authorized, as referred to in article 220 of the law of 30 July 2018 on

    the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of

    personal data, can submit a complaint to the Authority.



48. While the GDPR approaches the 'complaint' from the point of view of the data subject, the

    to impose obligations on control authorities when a person makes a complaint (see the


    Articles 57, 1., f) and 77 of the GDPR), the GDPR does not prevent other persons from being subject to national law

    then gives data subjects the opportunity to lodge a complaint with the national

    control authority. The possibility of such a referral is otherwise the same

    with the assignments assigned to the supervisory authorities by the GDPR. In this respect

    and generally speaking, each control authority ensures: the monitoring and enforcement of the

    application of the GDPR (Article 57, 1., a) GDPR), and the performance of all other related tasks

    with the protection of personal data (Article 57, 1., v) GDPR). 10



49. In that respect, the Disputes Chamber ruled that Article 58 WOG gives every person the opportunity


    to file a complaint, provided he has a sufficient interest in it accordingly

    the aforementioned provisions of the GDPR.



50. The condition is that the complainant appears to have a sufficient interest. Serves in this regard

    the Disputes Chamber to establish that the complainant is merely referring to a public interest

    consisting of the protection of the privacy rights of every citizen who uses his car

    uses the services of the car wash without being informed about the use of the

    camera images. He has expressly stated anyway not about any personal interest

    to dispose of.






9
 Parl. doc., Chamber of Representatives, 2016-2017, DOC 54 2648/001, p. 40 (comment on Article 58 of
the original bill).
10 In the same sense: Decision on the merits 30/2020 of 8 June 2020 Decision on the merits 80/2020 - 12/12



51. The complainant clearly appears to be pursuing a public interest, which cannot be considered sufficient

    considered. After all, the mere pursuit of a public interest is not enough to demonstrate

    of sufficient importance, in the absence of any concrete element related to the complainant

    involves data processing by the defendant. Because the complainant fails to exist


    of a sufficient interest on his behalf to make it plausible in order to allow his complaint

    by the Data Protection Authority, the Disputes Chamber will proceed to the

    determination of the non-conformity with the procedural rules by the declaration of

    admissibility of the complaint and the subsequent handling of the complaint.



52. In view of the fact that the complainant does not demonstrate that the defendant processes personal data

    relate to him, nor demonstrate that he has an interest that is sufficiently concrete

    is to be able to submit a complaint, the Disputes Chamber also determines that the complainant also

    did not have the capacity to submit a complaint and that the entire procedure

    consequently, it is affected by the absence not merely of importance, but also of quality in it

    on the part of the complainant.





IV. Publication of the decision



53. Considering the importance of transparency with regard to the decision-making of the

    Disputes Chamber, this decision will be published on the website of the

    Data protection authority. However, it is not necessary to provide the identification data

    of the parties are disclosed directly.





FOR THESE REASONS,



the Disputes Chamber of the Data Protection Authority decides, after deliberation, on the grounds

of Article 100, §1, 1 ° WOG, to dismiss the present complaint.



Against this decision on the basis of art. 108, §1 WOG, appeal can be lodged within one

term of thirty days, from the notification, at the Marktenhof, with the

Data protection authority as defendant.







(get.) Hielke Hijmans

Chairman of the Disputes Chamber