AP - BKR fined for hindering and charging fees for access requests
|AP - BKR fined for hindering and charging fees for access requests|
|Authority:||AP (The Netherlands)|
|Relevant Law:||Article 12(2) GDPR|
Article 12(5) GDPR
Article 15 GDPR
|National Case Number/Name:||BKR fined for hindering and charging fees for access requests|
|European Case Law Identifier:||n/a|
|Original Language(s):||Dutch |
|Original Source:||Ruling preliminary injunction (in NL) |
AP publication (in NL)
The Dutch DPA (AP) after investigation found multiple violations and decided to fine the Credit Registration Office (BKR) €830.000, because it charged fees for digital access requests and limited free access requests per mail to one per year. The BKR has announced they will appeal the fine. Additionally the BKR requested the AP does not publish their decision, but the Arhem court declined and the AP has published their decision.
English Summary[edit | edit source]
Facts[edit | edit source]
Between 25-05-2018 and 28-04-2019, the BKR provided for two ways to gain access to their personal information.
1. Through a subscription to a customer portal (Basic €4,95/y, Plus €7,50/y, Premium €12,50/y).
2. By downloading, printing and filling out a form, attaching an ID copy and submitting it per mail.
On 29-04-2019 the BKR added free digital access requests.
On 13-03-2019 the way the BKR communicates their policy was updated.
The BKR made a statement that in practice, they allowed access more than once per year and don't charge for requests made per mail. Stating their intention was to prevent excessive access requests.
Holding[edit | edit source]
The DPA held, free digital access requests should be available and the BKR violated this up to 29-04-2019.
It also held, the BKR up to 13-03-2019 insufficiently facilitated people in exercising their rights, by actively communicating a policy that free access requests per mail was limited to once per year, creating an additional barrier and discouragement.
Comment[edit | edit source]
The BKR also requested the AP's decision not be made public. The motivation included claims that the publication (due to reputation damage) acted as additional punishment besides the fine and that the appeal to the fine is still pending. The court 29-06-2020 Arnhem, denied this request and the AP has since published their decision.
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.