Court of Appeal of Brussels - 2020/AR/329

Market Court - 2020/AR/329
Court:	Cour des marchés de la cour d'appel de Bruxelles/Market Court of the Brussels appeal court (Belgium)
Jurisdiction:	Belgium
Relevant Law:	Article 57(4) GDPR Article 77 GDPR
Decided:	02.09.2020
Published:	18.09.2020
Parties:
National Case Number/Name:	2020/AR/329
European Case Law Identifier:
Appeal from:
Appeal to:
Original Language(s):	Dutch
Original Source:	Belgian Data Protection Authority (in Dutch)
Initial Contributor:	n/a

The Market Court rejected a decision by the Belgian APD/GBA, in which it had dismissed a complaint by a former notary against her accountants (who sent her data by e-mail to another notary) because (i) the complaint did not "have a broad societal impact" and (ii) the complaint had also been filed before another authority (and the APD/GBA wished to avoid double investigations).

The Market Court ordered the APD/GBA to re-examine the case.

English Summary

Facts

A (former) notary was in a dispute with another notary, the partner in her previous notary office. Her accountants sent personal data regarding her by e-mail to the other notary, and she filed a complaint against her accountants before the APD/GBA.

The APD/GBA dismissed the complaint (in a decision that has not been published), considering that:

• the complaint did not "have a broad societal impact" and
• a complaint had also been filed before another authority (for notaries), stating that the APD/GBA wished to avoid double investigations.

In addition, in a footnote, the APD/GBA noted that it anyway had to make budgetary choices about which cases to handle.

Dispute

Was the APD/GBA entitled to dismiss the complaint? Which justifications are required/permitted for dismissal?

Holding

First, the Market Court held that:

• ïf it chooses to dismiss a complaint, the APD/GBA has to provide reasons for such dismissal;

• if it is unclear on the basis of the APD/GBA's decision which reasons were decisive, the Market Court "must observe" that the justifications cannot support the decision;

• a decision based on incorrect or "legally unacceptable" reasons has to be overturned;

• the Market Court is not permitted to give its own judgment on facts (due to the very nature of the appellate procedure before the Market Court - and the Market Court's powers) - instead, it can only check whether the APD/GBA took its decision on the basis of correct facts.

In relation to the reasons given by the APD/GBA (in its decision) for dismissal of the complaint, the Market Court noted the following:

• on the fact that the complaint did not have any "broad societal impact": this reason for dismissal was insufficient, as the APD/GBA did not justify in the decision why it had reached this conclusion;

• on the fact that the notary had also filed another complaint before another authority: this reason for dismissal was insufficient, as no decision had yet been taken in those proceedings (moreover, that complaint was filed later, apparently);

• on the fact that the APD/GBA had to make budgetary choices: the Market Court stated that "citizens cannot be the victim" of this situation (instead, the APD/GBA has to "ensure that it uses its resources properly"), and that moreover the APD/GBA failed to demonstrate this affirmation.

The Market Court concluded that the APD/GBA had to re-examine the case.

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.