Rb. Amsterdam - AMS 22/1414: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(Shortened summary, expanded facts a little, expanded and clarified the holding.) |
||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
}} | }} | ||
The | The Court of Amsterdam (Rb. Amsterdam) rejected a request for interim injunction aimed at deleting the data subject's record in the credit register under Article 34 of the GDPR Implementation Act (UAVG). The data subject's individual interest in the deletion was outweighed by the social interest in maintaining his registration. | ||
== English Summary == | == English Summary == | ||
=== Facts === | === Facts === | ||
The | The data subject requested that his credit registration be deleted by the Credit Bank. Because the Credit Bank declined, the data subject asked the preliminary relief judge at Rb. Amsterdam for an interim injunction. He did so particularly because this registration formed an obstacle in obtaining a mortgage and his reservation period for the purchase of a house was to expire soon. The data subject and his partner wanted to purchase a house especially in light of the birth of their child. | ||
=== Holding === | === Holding === | ||
Rb. Amsterdam refused the request for an interim injunction with regard to the removal of the data subject's record in the credit register under Article 34 of the UAVG. | |||
The deletion of a credit register is preceded by a weighing of interests in which the individual interest of the applicant in the removal of the credit registration is weighed up against the social interest in maintaining this registration. The outcome of this balancing of interests was that it was still too early to state that the registration was disproportionate just one year after the debt had been repaid. | |||
The preliminary relief judge also took other circumstances of the case into account, such as the data subject's fault in incurring his debts and the fact that he had only recently become financially stable. The court also noted that the measure requested by the data subject is not really an interim injunction. The consequences would be irreversible because he would secure a mortgage as a result. | |||
However, despite the refusal to issue an interim injunction at this moment, the court pointed out that it does not necessarily mean that the data subject's record should stay in place for another four years. | |||
== Comment == | == Comment == | ||
Revision as of 14:29, 19 April 2022
| Rb. Amsterdam - AMS 22/1414 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | Rb. Amsterdam (Netherlands) |
| Jurisdiction: | Netherlands |
| Relevant Law: | Article 17 GDPR Article 34 Implementation Act General Data Protection Regulation |
| Decided: | 24.03.2022 |
| Published: | 12.04.2022 |
| Parties: | |
| National Case Number/Name: | AMS 22/1414 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2022:1605 |
| Appeal from: | |
| Appeal to: | Not appealed |
| Original Language(s): | Dutch |
| Original Source: | Rechtspraak (in Dutch) |
| Initial Contributor: | A. Mobayen |
The Court of Amsterdam (Rb. Amsterdam) rejected a request for interim injunction aimed at deleting the data subject's record in the credit register under Article 34 of the GDPR Implementation Act (UAVG). The data subject's individual interest in the deletion was outweighed by the social interest in maintaining his registration.
English Summary
Facts
The data subject requested that his credit registration be deleted by the Credit Bank. Because the Credit Bank declined, the data subject asked the preliminary relief judge at Rb. Amsterdam for an interim injunction. He did so particularly because this registration formed an obstacle in obtaining a mortgage and his reservation period for the purchase of a house was to expire soon. The data subject and his partner wanted to purchase a house especially in light of the birth of their child.
Holding
Rb. Amsterdam refused the request for an interim injunction with regard to the removal of the data subject's record in the credit register under Article 34 of the UAVG.
The deletion of a credit register is preceded by a weighing of interests in which the individual interest of the applicant in the removal of the credit registration is weighed up against the social interest in maintaining this registration. The outcome of this balancing of interests was that it was still too early to state that the registration was disproportionate just one year after the debt had been repaid.
The preliminary relief judge also took other circumstances of the case into account, such as the data subject's fault in incurring his debts and the fact that he had only recently become financially stable. The court also noted that the measure requested by the data subject is not really an interim injunction. The consequences would be irreversible because he would secure a mortgage as a result.
However, despite the refusal to issue an interim injunction at this moment, the court pointed out that it does not necessarily mean that the data subject's record should stay in place for another four years.
Comment
The judgment of the preliminary relief judge has a provisional character and does not bind the court in any proceedings on the merits.
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.
The Court denied a request for injunctive relief regarding the removal of a credit register based on Article 24 of the Implementation Act General Data Protection Regulation, on the basis of a set of proportions and because the injection could not be reserved.
