Rb. Noord-Holland - C/15/375308

Rb. Noord-Holland - C/15/375308
Court:	Rb. Noord-Holland (Netherlands)
Jurisdiction:	Netherlands
Relevant Law:	Article 6 GDPR Article 17 GDPR Article 82 GDPR
Decided:	12.05.2026
Published:	28.06.2026
Parties:	SAINTS & STARS B.V.
National Case Number/Name:	C/15/375308
European Case Law Identifier:	ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2026:5128
Appeal from:
Appeal to:	Unknown
Original Language(s):	Dutch
Original Source:	de Rechtspraak (in Dutch)
Initial Contributor:	ap

A court dismissed a data subject’s claim for damages after receiving marketing emails without consent. The court stated that the data subject had not provided evidence on the harm caused by the emails.

English Summary

Facts

SAINTS & STARS B.V. (the controller) is a company that operates several gyms. In 2025, a data subject cancelled their membership and requested the controller to erase all their personal data in accordance with Article 17 GDPR. The controller sent two general marketing emails after terminating the data subject’s membership. The controller argued that it had a legal obligation to retain the data subject’s data, as they had not paid the final invoice. The controller also claimed to have unsubscribed the data subject from its marketing emails list.

The data subject brought a case to the court, requesting the court to order the controller to erase their data and pay €750 in non material damages. During the proceedings, the court informed the data subject that their claim for erasure would be rejected, as they did not file the case within the time limit set by national law. The data subject stated that they no longer wished their data to be deleted, but still maintained their claim for damages.

Holding

The court first clarified that the deadline applied for the erasure claim and not the claim for damages, as the six week limit under national law applies to requests under Articles 15 to 22 GDPR.

The court then stated that it was not in dispute that the controller unlawfully processed the data subject’s data to send them marketing emails. The controller processed this data without a valid legal basis under Article 6 GDPR, as the data subject did not consent to this processing.

However, the court refused to award the data subject damages. Under Article 82 GDPR, a violation of the GDPR in itself is not sufficient to grant a data subject damages. According to the court, the data subject did not provide evidence beyond stating they felt “genuine discomfort“ when receiving the emails after canceling their membership. This was insufficient to establish non material damage.

The court dismissed 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.

Skip to content
The Judiciary - go to the homepage

Home
Topics
Rulings and news
Registers
The Judiciary
Professionals
Contact
Forms and login

Home>
Rulings and news

Rulings

A portion of all judicial rulings is published on rechtspraak.nl. This is done pseudonymously.
Found search terms (1)

Turn off highlighting
GDPR
This ruling has been pseudonymized in accordance with the pseudonymization directive
ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2026:5128
Share ruling
Institution
District Court of North Holland
Date of ruling
12-05-2026
Date of publication
28-05-2026
Case number
C/15/375308
Areas of law
Law of obligations
Special features
Decision
Content indication

GDPR case. Petitioner requests payment of damages by defendant pursuant to Art. Article 82 GDPR. The court rejects the request because the petitioner has insufficiently substantiated that he has suffered damage.

Sources
Rechtspraak.nl
Enriched judgment
Judgment
Distinguishing from the District Court of North Holland

Civil law

Location of hearing Haarlem

Case number / petition number: C/15/375308 / HA RK 26-38

Decision of 12 May 2026

in the case of

[petitioner] ,

residing in [place],

petitioner,

hereinafter referred to as: petitioner,

in person,

against

the private limited liability company

SAINTS & STARS B.V.,

having its registered office in Hoofddorp,

respondent,

hereinafter referred to as: Saints & Stars,

attorney: Mr. G.F.H. Velthuizen.

1 The proceedings
1.1. The course of the proceedings is evident from:

- the petition received on 3 March 2026 with seven exhibits,

- the letter from the court dated 11 March 2026,

- the petitioner's response thereto dated 12 March 2026,

- the email from the court dated 24 March 2026 in which the court states that it will schedule an oral hearing,

- the statement of defence dated 21 April 2026 with nine exhibits,

- the oral hearing of 28 April 2026, of which notes were taken by the clerk.

1.2.

The decision was rendered today.

2 The facts
2.1.

On 26 July 2025, the petitioner requested to terminate his membership with Saints & Stars with immediate effect. In addition, he requested Saints & Stars to delete all his personal data pursuant to Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (hereinafter: GDPR). On the same day, Saints & Stars confirmed the termination by email. Due to the applicable notice period, the applicant's membership was terminated effective August 20, 2025. Saints & Stars charged the applicant membership fees in the amount of € 129.00 for the period up to August 20, 2025.

2.2.

Subsequently, on September 9 and 28, 2025, the applicant received two general marketing

emails from Saints & Stars promoting a fitness subscription at Saints & Stars.

2.3.

On October 2 and 3, 2025, an email exchange took place between the parties in which the applicant indicated that he refused to pay the final installment charged. He also writes that, despite his request to delete his personal data pursuant to the GDPR, he still received marketing emails from Saints & Stars, which, according to the applicant, is contrary to both Dutch and European laws and regulations. In response, Saints & Stars wrote that, pursuant to the GDPR, it is obliged to delete personal data upon request, unless there is an obligation under the law to retain the personal data. Saints & Stars subsequently writes that it is obliged to retain the applicant's data in connection with the outstanding amount and to comply with legal obligations. Finally, Saints & Stars writes that it has since unsubscribed the applicant from marketing emails.
2.4.

On November 28, 2025, the applicant notified Saints & Stars by registered letter of default for failing to comply in a timely manner with the request to delete his personal data pursuant to Article 17 of the GDPR. In addition, the petitioner claims payment of € 750.00 in non-pecuniary damages pursuant to Article 82 of the GDPR.

2.5.

Subsequently, Saints & Stars responded to this by letter in December 2025 and

rejected the request for compensation for non-pecuniary damages. It also claims payment by the petitioner of the installment amount of € 129.00.

3 The petition and the defense
3.1.

The petitioner subsequently filed a petition with this court in which he requests the court to order Saints & Stars to pay non-pecuniary damages in the amount of € 750.00 pursuant to Article 82 of the GDPR, to order Saints & Stars to permanently delete his personal data pursuant to Article 17 of the GDPR, and to order Saints & Stars to pay the legal costs.

3.2. By letter dated 11 March 2026, the court informed the petitioner that it intends to declare the request inadmissible without a hearing, because it appears that the petition seeking to order the removal of the personal data was not filed within the six-week period, as follows from Article 35 paragraph 2 of the Implementing Act General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter: UAVG).

3.3.

By letter dated 12 March 2026, the petitioner responded to this and indicated that he is not requesting removal and that his request for non-pecuniary damages should be declared admissible.

3.4.

Saints & Stars submits a defense and concludes that the petitioner is inadmissible, or alternatively that the petitioner's request should be rejected, with an order for the petitioner to pay the costs of the proceedings.

3.5. To this end, Saints & Stars argues that, despite the fact that the petitioner no longer maintains his request for the removal of his personal data, the petitioner cannot be received because the request was submitted too late. Furthermore, according to Saints & Stars, it processes the petitioner's personal data lawfully because, on the one hand, the processing is necessary for the settlement of the execution of the agreement and it still has a claim against the petitioner by virtue of that agreement, and on the other hand, because it is obliged to retain its accounts receivable and accounts payable records for seven years pursuant to Article 52 of the General Act on National Taxes. Saints & Stars regrets that the petitioner received two marketing emails in September 2025, for which it has also offered its apologies. Saints & Stars disputes that the petitioner suffered non-pecuniary damage, because he has not substantiated such damage with objective data or other information. According to Saints & Stars, there is therefore no question of ‘violation of the person’ of the petitioner, and the requested compensation must be rejected for that reason alone. Saint & Stars also points out that it has not shared any personal data with third parties.

4 The assessment

Petitioner's request can be admitted
4.1.

Although Article 35 paragraph 2 of the GDPR stipulates that the petition must be submitted to the court within a period of six weeks following receipt of the response from the controller, the stated period applies only to requests made pursuant to Articles 15 to 22 of the GDPR.1 That period does not apply to a request for compensation for non-pecuniary damage pursuant to Article 82 of the GDPR. At the oral hearing, the petitioner confirmed that he no longer maintains his request for the erasure of his personal data pursuant to Article 17 of the GDPR and only requests compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The petitioner can therefore be admitted in his request.

Saints & Stars have processed the personal data unlawfully
4.2.

According to Saints & Stars, it has a legal obligation to retain the applicant's personal data because, on the one hand, the data is necessary in connection with the settlement of the contractual relationship with the applicant2 and, on the other hand, because Saints & Stars is subject to a statutory retention obligation regarding its accounts receivable and accounts payable records3.

4.3.

It is not in dispute that the applicant's data should not have been processed for marketing purposes. Specifically, the applicant's personal data were not retained for that purpose after his termination, and the applicant had not given consent for this either. There is no valid legal basis for processing referred to in Article 6 of the GDPR. This means that the marketing emails of 9 and 28 September 2025 should not have been sent to the applicant and that Saints & Stars acted in violation of Article 6 of the GDPR and therefore unlawfully by sending them.

The court does not award damages
4.4.

The question then arises whether this should lead to the award of damages for non-material damage. The court answers that question in the negative and explains this below.
4.5.

Article 82 of the GDPR stipulates that anyone who has suffered material or immaterial damage as a result of a breach of the GDPR has the right to receive compensation from the controller or processor for the damage suffered. However, this does not mean that a breach of the GDPR is in itself sufficient to claim compensation. This is evident from the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 4 May 2023, in which it was ruled that a breach of the provisions of the GDPR is not in itself sufficient for the granting of a right to compensation. The Court infers from the wording of Article 82 of the GDPR that actual damage must have been suffered and that a causal link between the infringement of the GDPR and the damage suffered is a condition for a right to compensation.4 In this regard, according to the Court, the right to compensation within the meaning of Article 82(1) of the GDPR must be interpreted as serving exclusively a compensatory function (and thus not a punitive one), in the sense that monetary compensation based on that provision must make it possible to fully compensate the actual damage suffered.5 Since the GDPR does not specify how any compensation to be awarded should be calculated, national courts must apply the internal rules of each Member State regarding the amount of monetary compensation, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness under Union law are observed.6
4.6.For the assessment of a request for compensation for non-material damage, it is important that Article 6:106(b) of the Dutch Civil Code (BW) stipulates that an injured party is entitled to compensation for damage that does not consist of pecuniary loss, to be determined equitably, if the injured party has suffered physical injury, has been harmed in his honor or good name, or has been affected in his person in another manner.

4.7.

An ‘impairment of his person’ referred to above exists in any case if the injured party has suffered mental injury. The person invoking this must present sufficiently concrete data from which it can be concluded that psychological damage has arisen in connection with the circumstances of the case. To this end, it is required that the existence of mental injury can be established according to objective standards. Even if the existence of mental injury in the aforementioned sense cannot be assumed, it is not excluded that the nature and severity of the violation of the norm and of the consequences thereof for the injured party entail that there is an infringement of his person as referred to in Article 6:106(b) of the Dutch Civil Code. However, in such a case, the person invoking this will have to substantiate the infringement of his person with concrete data. This is only different if the nature and severity of the violation of the norm entail that the adverse consequences thereof for the injured party relevant in this context are so obvious that an infringement of the person can be assumed. Violation of a fundamental right does not immediately constitute an infringement of the person as referred to in Article 6:106(b) of the Dutch Civil Code.7
4.8.

The court does not consider it plausible that the petitioner was affected in his person by the receipt of the two marketing emails. In the first place, it has not been alleged, nor has it appeared, that there is any psychological damage to the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner has not substantiated with concrete data how he was harmed in his person by the receipt of the two marketing emails sent to him, which were moreover drafted in general terms. The petitioner has merely stated that he experienced real inconvenience because he received the two emails after the cancellation of his membership. In any case, that is insufficient to establish harm to the person; there must be more to it. This means that it has not been shown that the petitioner suffered damage as a result of the infringement of the GDPR by Saints & Stars that qualifies for compensation. The court therefore rejects the request for compensation for non-material damage pursuant to Article 82 of the GDPR.

Legal costs
4.9.

The petitioner has been unsuccessful and must therefore pay the legal costs (including post-judgment costs). The legal costs of Saints & Stars are assessed at:

- court fees

€

735.00

- lawyer's fees

€

1,306.00

(2 points × € 653.00)

- subsequent costs

€

189.00

(plus the increase as stated in the decision)

Total

€

2,230.00

5 The Decision

The Court
5.1.

rejects the request,

5.2.

orders the petitioner to pay the legal costs of € 2,230.00, to be paid within fourteen days after notification to that effect, to be increased by € 98.00 plus the costs of service if the petitioner does not comply with the judgment in a timely manner and the decision is subsequently served.

This decision was rendered by Mr. E.B. van den Heuvel and pronounced in public on 12 May 2026.

1 Article 35 paragraph 1 GDPR.

2 Article 6 paragraph 1 sub b GDPR.

3 Article 6 paragraph 1 sub c GDPR

4 CJEU 4 May 2023, ECLI:EU:C:2023:370, C-300/21, paragraph 32 (Österreichische Post). 5 CJEU 20 June 2024, ECLI:EU:C:2024:531, C-182/22, C-189/22, paragraph 24.

6 Id, paragraph 27.

7 See the judgments of the Supreme Court of 15 March 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:376, paragraph 4.2.2, of 28 May 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:793, paragraph 2.4.5. and of 19 July 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1278, paragraph 2.13.2. Help with searching

An extensive manual is available for searching for judgments, including explanations regarding:

Search by date of judgment/publication
Search by keywords
Search by ECLI or LJN
Search by area of law
Finding locations for judgments
Finding judgments at locations

Selection criteria

The Judiciary, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, and the Council of State publish judgments based on selection criteria:

Judgments in multi-judge chamber cases
Judgments of the Supreme Court and appellate courts
Judgments with media attention
Judgments in criminal cases
European law
Guideline judgments
Recusal

Full selection criteria

Weekly overview

Select a week and view which judgments have been added to the judgment register in that week.

Weekly overview of judgments

English
Sitemap
Privacy
Cookies
Accessibility
Spoofing
Vacancies
Archive
Disclaimer

Follow us

twitter
facebook
facebook
linkedin
youtube

Stay up to date

rss
email