Rb. Overijssel - ak 21 1125
| Rb. Overijssel - ak_21_1125 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | Rb. Overijssel (Netherlands) |
| Jurisdiction: | Netherlands |
| Relevant Law: | Article 17(1) GDPR Article 17(3) GDPR |
| Decided: | 30.06.2022 |
| Published: | 06.07.2022 |
| Parties: | Minister for Legal Protection |
| National Case Number/Name: | ak_21_1125 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2022:1910 |
| Appeal from: | |
| Appeal to: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | Dutch |
| Original Source: | Rechtspraak.nl (in Dutch) |
| Initial Contributor: | Jette |
The District Court of Overijssel held that the Minister for Legal Protection was not obliged to honor an erasure request since the data was still relevant for the Child Care and Protection Board (RvdK) to perform its tasks.
English Summary
Facts
The controller was the Minister for Legal Protection. The 2 data subjects have been in a relationship since 2020 and are expecting a baby. On February 2021, they were investigated because they were expecting a baby by the Child Care and Protection Board (RvdK), after a Request for Investigation (VTO) from Child Protection Overijssel (JBOV). The RvdK made a report following this request. The report included two attachments, containing a timeline from June 2013 to November 2020, and a forensic psychological investigation of data subject 1.
On March 2021, the data subjects requested the controller to erase the attachments, as they were in their view no longer relevant. They concerned information on data subject 1, her ex-partner and the children they have together. They argued that this was separate from the investigation regarding the baby they were expecting. Moreover, they stated that the JBOV promised them orally to leave the past alone. The controller denied this request, as the RvdK needed the information for the exercise of its statutory task of public interest. The data subjects objected this decision, which the controller declared unfounded. The data subjects then filed an appeal at the court.
In the appeal, the data subjects stated that there were no compelling legitimate grounds to process the attachments, that outweigh their interests. They argued that processing cannot be necessary, as the information is seriously outdated and obsolete. They also argued that retention of the data is not important with respect to the RvdK's task of public interest. They felt that it was disproportionately invasive of their privacy for the purpose served. The controller contested these arguments and stated that the importance of conducting a proper investigation outweighed the invasion of the data subjects' privacy.
Holding
The Court stated that while the attachments relate to the past, this did not make them outdated. It followed that they contained information on data subject 1's parenting skills, which may be of importance to the current investigation. The fact that they also contained information about her ex-partner did not change this.
The Court held that processing the personal data in question was necessary for fulfilling the task of public interest of the RvdK (Article 17(3) GDPR). Therefore, the controller did not have to comply with the request for erasure (Article 17(1) GDPR).
The Court held that the appeal was unfounded and upheld the challenged decision.
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.
Body
Court of Overijssel
Date of judgment
30-06-2022
Date of publication
06-07-2022
Case number
ak_21_1125
Jurisdictions
Administrative law
Special characteristics
First instance - single
Content indication
Rejection of the request for destruction of the file of an unborn child held by the Child Protection Board; processing of data that the claimants would like to have erased is necessary for the fulfillment of the task of general interest entrusted to the Child Protection Board; appeal unfounded.
Locations
Rechtspraak.nl
Enhanced pronunciation
Pronunciation
COURT OVERIJSSEL
Seating place Zwolle
Administrative law
case number: AWB 21/1125
decision of the single chamber in the case between
[claimant 1] and [claimant 2] in [place of residence] , claimants,
authorized representative: mr. L.H.E.M. Berendse-de Gruijl,
and
the Minister for Legal Protection, defendant,
authorized representatives: S.M.T. Damman and J. Gouma.
Process sequence
By decision of April 14, 2021 (the primary decision), the defendant rejected the claimants' request for destruction of the file of their unborn child. Plaintiffs appealed that decision.
By decision of 28 June 2021 (the contested decision), the defendant declared the objection of the plaintiffs unfounded.
Plaintiffs have appealed against that decision.
The hearing took place on 19 May 2022. [claimant 1] appeared, assisted by mr. V. de Roo as an observer for the claimants' representative. Defendant was represented by his attorneys.
Considerations
Relevant facts and circumstances
1.1
On March 8, 2021, the plaintiffs requested the destruction of the file of their then unborn child, which was held by the Child Protection Board (RvK). This mainly concerns the two appendices to the Request for an Investigation (VTO) with regard to claimants that Youth Protection Overijssel (JBOV) submitted to the RvdK in February 2021. The two appendices concern a Timeline for the period June 2013 to November 2020 (hereinafter: Timeline) and a forensic psychological investigation report concerning [claimant 1] (hereinafter: NIFP report) dated 2 October 2020.
1.2
The reason for their request is that the claimants are of the opinion that the VTO should only deal with the present, because in their eyes the past - which relates to [claimant 1] and her ex-partner and the children they have together - is there. independent of state. In addition, the JBOV would have promised them verbally that they would put the past to rest. Plaintiffs believe that the Timeline and the NIFP report should therefore not be available in the RvdK system and should therefore be destroyed.
1.3
In the primary decision, the defendant rejected the plaintiffs' request. In doing so, the defendant considered that the RvdK, pursuant to its statutory duty, will investigate the claimants' unborn child and will make use of the VTO, including the appendices that the JBOV has deemed it important to send along as substantiation. of the VTO.
1.4
Plaintiffs objected to the primary decision. In the contested decision, the defendant declared the objection of the plaintiffs unfounded and upheld the rejection of their application. It appears from the notice of appeal and what was put forward at the hearing that the plaintiffs do not agree with the defendant's decision.
The grounds for appeal
2.1
On appeal, the claimants have argued – in summary – that their personal data must be erased and that there are no overriding compelling legitimate grounds for the processing of that data. According to them, the data in question is very outdated, outdated and therefore objectionable. The processing of that data is therefore not necessary in the opinion of the claimants.
2.2
Plaintiffs are of the opinion that the Timeline and the NIFP report no longer serve with regard to the processing and that the retention of the personal data is therefore not important for the task of the public interest of the RvdK. Plaintiffs believe that they deserve a new chance and that they should not be constantly confronted with old data from [claimant 1]'s previous partner. Plaintiffs argue that their situation has changed for the better. They have been in a relationship since 2020. Plaintiffs want to make a fresh start with their families. They believe that the RvdK's vision is colored by the outdated information. If there are compelling legitimate grounds for processing, they do not outweigh their interests, according to the claimants. In their view, the invasion of privacy is disproportionate in relation to the purpose to be served by the processing.
Court Considerations
3.1
The court is of the opinion and there is no dispute between the parties that the request of the plaintiffs falls under the operation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
3.2
Pursuant to Article 17(1) of the GDPR, a data subject has the right in a number of cases to ask an organization to delete his personal data. The organization must erase the personal data, among other things, if they are no longer necessary for the purpose for which the organization collected them or for which the organization processes them or if the data subject objects to the processing of his data and there are no overriding legitimate grounds for the are processing.
3.3
However, it follows from Article 17(3) of the GDPR that there are a number of exceptions to the right to erasure. This right does not apply, for example, if an organization is legally obliged to use that data or to keep it for a certain period of time or if its processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or for the exercise of public authority.
3.4
In this case, the respondent takes the position that the RvdK has legitimate grounds for processing the personal data in question and that the claimants cannot invoke Article 17, first paragraph, of the AVG, in view of the RvdK's task of general interest. . The defendant is also of the opinion that the importance of conducting a thorough investigation outweighs the infringement of the claimants' privacy.
3.5
The court can follow this reasoning of the defendant. It may be the case that the annexes to the VTO relate to a period in the past, but this does not mean that they are therefore obsolete and outdated and that they are not or cannot be relevant to the investigation into the current situation of the claimants. The NIFP report is from October 2020 and is therefore still quite recent. Although the Timeline already starts in 2013, it will continue until November 2020 and therefore also contains fairly recent information. The fact that those documents may also contain information about [claimant 1]'s ex-partner and her other children, does not alter the fact that they also contain data that may be important for the investigation into the parenting skills and parenting of [claimant]. 1] . The fact that [claimant 1] now has a new partner in the person of [claimant 2] and that, according to claimants, much has changed in a positive way in their lives since the NIFP report of October 2020, does not mean that there is therefore is of a completely new situation in which the past no longer plays a role in any way. The investigation by the RvdK is precisely necessary to determine whether this is indeed the case and what the influence will be on the rearing situation of the unborn child. Defendant cannot anticipate the results of that investigation. The court is therefore of the opinion that the processing of the data that the plaintiffs would like to have deleted is necessary for the fulfillment of the task of general interest entrusted to the RvK. Defendant therefore did not have to comply with the request for erasure.
3.6
In light of the findings of the hearing, the court considers the following. The fact that in the end no supervision order took place is positive for the plaintiffs, but that does not mean that processing of the two appendices was not necessary for the fulfillment of the task of the RvK.
4. The contested decision may be upheld. The appeal is unfounded.
5. There is no reason for an order to pay costs.
Decision
The court dismissed the appeal.
This decision was made by E. Hoekstra, judge, in the presence of G. Kootstra, as clerk of the court. The decision was pronounced in public on
the clerk is unable to judge
to sign the verdict
Copy sent to parties on:
Remedy
An appeal can be lodged against this decision with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State within six weeks of the date on which it was sent. If an appeal has been lodged, a request can be made to the preliminary relief judge of the appeal court to make a provisional injunction or to cancel or amend a provisional injunction made by this decision.
