Banner1.png
Banner3.png

Editing Rb. Den Haag - AWB - 19 6782

From GDPRhub

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 50: Line 50:
 
}}
 
}}
  
The District Court of The Hague (Rb. Den Haag) ruled that Article 15 GDPR did not apply to a complainant's information that was held by the municipality of The Hague. The Court also clarified that Article 15 GDPR does not entitle the complainant to receive a copy of the document containing personal data, as the documents themselves do not constitute personal data.
+
The District Court of The Hague ruled that Article 15 GDPR doesn’t apply to the claimant's information held by the municipality of the Hague: IP address (it doesn’t constitute personal data in this case), debit card payment (the data has been anonymized), emails exchanged with the claimant (the claimant already has them). Furthermore, the Court clarified that Article 15 GDPR does not entitle the claimant to receive a copy of the physical or digital documents which contain personal data because these documents themselves do not constitute personal data.
  
==English Summary==
+
== English Summary ==
  
===Facts===
+
=== Facts ===
On 27 December 2018, the claimant requested access to his personal data held by the municipality of The Hague. He requested access to, among others, the information relating to an IP address, serial numbers and details of bicycles towed by the municipality and email communication with the employees of the municipality. The municipality provided claimant with some information but decided against disclosing all requested personal data.
+
On 27 December 2018, the claimant requested access to his personal data held by the municipality of The Hague. He requested access to, among others, the information relating to an IP address, serial numbers and details of bicycles towed by the municipality and email communication with the employees of the municipality.  
===Dispute===
+
The municipality provided claimant with some information but decided against disclosing all requested personal data.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
=== Dispute ===
 
The claimant insists that the list of personal data provided by the municipality is incomplete. He argues that IP address, email communication and debit card payment information for the towed bicycle should be included.
 
The claimant insists that the list of personal data provided by the municipality is incomplete. He argues that IP address, email communication and debit card payment information for the towed bicycle should be included.
  
===Holding===
+
=== Holding ===
 
The Court ruled that, as follows from the case law of the Administrative Division of the Council of State, the person who claims that there should be more personal data, has to make it evident that this is indeed the case if they want to contest the administrative body’s investigation into the matter.
 
The Court ruled that, as follows from the case law of the Administrative Division of the Council of State, the person who claims that there should be more personal data, has to make it evident that this is indeed the case if they want to contest the administrative body’s investigation into the matter.
  
Line 67: Line 70:
  
 
Regarding the claimant’s email communication with the municipality, the Court found that the claimant already has the emails he sent himself and the municipality’s response. Moreover, the Court ruled that Article 15 GDPR does not entitle the claimant to receive a copy of the physical or digital documents which contain his personal data because these documents do not constitute personal data. The claimant has the right to a complete overview, in an understandable form, of his personal data in order to be able to check the accuracy of these data and assess whether they are processed in accordance with the GDPR.
 
Regarding the claimant’s email communication with the municipality, the Court found that the claimant already has the emails he sent himself and the municipality’s response. Moreover, the Court ruled that Article 15 GDPR does not entitle the claimant to receive a copy of the physical or digital documents which contain his personal data because these documents do not constitute personal data. The claimant has the right to a complete overview, in an understandable form, of his personal data in order to be able to check the accuracy of these data and assess whether they are processed in accordance with the GDPR.
==Comment==
+
 
 +
 
 +
== Comment ==
 
''Share your comments here!''
 
''Share your comments here!''
  
==Further Resources==
+
== Further Resources ==
 
''Share blogs or news articles here!''
 
''Share blogs or news articles here!''
  
==English Machine Translation of the Decision==
+
== 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 decision below is a machine translation of the Dutch original. Please refer to the Dutch original for more details.
  

Please note that all contributions to GDPRhub are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (see GDPRhub:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To edit this page, please answer the question that appears below (more info):

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

Template used on this page: