CFI Brussels - 2021/2476/A: Difference between revisions

From GDPRhub
(Created page with "{{COURTdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Belgium |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png |Court_Abbrevation=Trib. Civ. Bruxelles |Court_With_Country=Trib. Civ. Bruxelles (Belgiu...")
 
(source)
Line 11: Line 11:


|Original_Source_Name_1=noyb
|Original_Source_Name_1=noyb
|Original_Source_Link_1=https://juportal.be/moteur/formulaire
|Original_Source_Link_1=https://noyb.eu/files/GDPRhub/Trib.%20Civ.%20Bruxelles%20-%202021_2476_A.pdf
|Original_Source_Language_1=French
|Original_Source_Language_1=French
|Original_Source_Language__Code_1=FR
|Original_Source_Language__Code_1=FR

Revision as of 15:52, 7 June 2022

Trib. Civ. Bruxelles - 2021/2476/A
Courts logo1.png
Court: Trib. Civ. Bruxelles (Belgium)
Jurisdiction: Belgium
Relevant Law: Article 77 GDPR
1382 Civil code
1382 code civil
Decided: 27.05.2022
Published:
Parties:
National Case Number/Name: 2021/2476/A
European Case Law Identifier:
Appeal from:
Appeal to: Unknown
Original Language(s): French
Original Source: noyb (in French)
Initial Contributor: n/a

A Brussels Tribunal confirmed that the BE DPA did not properly handled the case of a complainant and committed a breach of its duty of care by leaving the complainant in the dark for 9 months about the handling of his request to reach an amicable solution within a reasonable period of time.

English Summary

Facts

Mr X filed a complaint with the BE DPA because his ex-wilfe was posting pictures of his son on Facebook. The litigation Chamber closed the case and suggested to the complainant to ask a mediation to the dedicated service within the DPA to reach an amicable settlement. The complainant sent such a request on 30/12/2019 but only received an answer from the DPA on 18 May 2020. After several reminders, the APD informed the complainant on 1 October 2020 that the mediation did not succeed. The complainant sued the APD for damages before the Brussels court, for not dealing with his case in a timely and with the appropriate care.

Holding

The Tribunal held that the APD lacked of diligence on the following grounds: - no explanation was given to the complainant on the different steps undertaken to handle the complaint, despite the numerous reminders sent by the complainant - not having answered to the complainant despite having committed to provide an answer before 15 August 2020 - not having handled the case within a reasonable period of time

The DPA is order to pay 1 euro to the complainant, as a symbolic amount, since no other damage could be demonstrated by the complainant as a consequence of the lack of diligence.


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 French original. Please refer to the French original for more details.