Rb. Rotterdam - C/10/576074/HA RK 19-694: Difference between revisions

From GDPRhub
Line 62: Line 62:


<pre>
<pre>
TRIBUNAL DE ROTTERDAM
ROTTERDAM COURT


Équipe commerciale et portuaire
Trade and port team


Numéro de l'affaire / numéro de la pétition : C/10/576074 / HA RK 19-694
Case number / petition number: C/10/576074 / HA RK 19-694


Décision du 21 janvier 2020
Decision of 21 January 2020


en matière de
in the matter of


[demandeur] ,
[applicant] ,


résidant au [lieu de résidence du demandeur] ,
residing at [place of residence of applicant] ,


pétitionnaire,
petitioner,


est apparu en personne,
appeared in person,


et
and


l'entité de droit public
the public-law entity


L'ÉTAT DES PAYS-BAS,
THE STATE OF THE NETHERLANDS,


établie à La Haye ,
established in The Hague ,


défendeur,
defendant,


avocat M.M.C. van Graafeiland, La Haye.
attorney at law M.M.C. van Graafeiland, The Hague.


Les parties seront ci-après dénommées [le demandeur] et l'État.
The parties will hereinafter be referred to as [applicant] and the State.
1 La procédure
1 The procedure
1.1.
1.1.


Une demande datée du 30 janvier 2019 avec les productions 1 à 7 a été reçue au greffe du tribunal de district [nom du tribunal de district].
An application dated 30 January 2019 with productions 1 to 7 was received at the Registry of the District Court [name of the District Court].
1.2.
1.2.


Par ordonnance du 21 mai 2019, le tribunal de première instance du tribunal de district [nom de la juridiction] a renvoyé l'affaire, en l'état, à l'équipe commerciale du tribunal de district [nom de la juridiction] .
By order of 21 May 2019, the Subdistrict Court of the District Court [name of court] referred the case, as it stands, to the Commercial Team of the District Court [name of court] .
1.3.
1.3.


Par ordonnance du 14 juin 2019, le tribunal de district [nom du tribunal de district] a renvoyé l'affaire, en l'état, au tribunal de district de Rotterdam.
By order of 14 June 2019, the district court [name of district court] referred the case, as it stood, to the Rotterdam District Court.
1.4.
1.4.


Par lettre datée du 1er octobre 2019, M. Van Graafeiland a agi au nom de l'État.
By letter dated 1 October 2019, Mr. Van Graafeiland acted on behalf of the State.
1.5.
1.5.


Contrairement à sa lettre du 1er octobre 2019, M. Van Graafeiland a déclaré, par lettre du 13 novembre 2019, qu'elle s'est exclusivement portée à la défense de l'État dans la présente affaire et dans les affaires portant les numéros C/10/576071 / HA RK 19-693, C/10/576079 / HA RK 19-696, C/10/576091 / HA RK 19-701, C/10/576096 / HA RK 19-703 et C/10/576129 / HA RK 19-708. Cela signifie qu'elle n'a pas agi en tant qu'avocate au nom de l'État dans la présente affaire.
Contrary to her letter of 1 October 2019, by letter of 13 November 2019, Mr. Van Graafeiland stated that she exclusively stood up on behalf of the State in the present case and in the cases with case numbers C/10/576071 / HA RK 19-693, C/10/576079 / HA RK 19-696, C/10/576091 / HA RK 19-701, C/10/576096 / HA RK 19-703 and C/10/576129 / HA RK 19-708. This means that she has not acted as an attorney at law on behalf of the State in the present case.
1.6.
1.6.


Le 2 décembre 2019, un mémoire en défense avec les productions 1.1 à 2c inclus a été reçu au greffe de ce tribunal de district.
On 2 December 2019 a statement of defence with productions 1.1 up to and including 2c was received at the Registry of this District Court.
1.7.
1.7.


Le 3 décembre 2019, une lettre de [la requérante] accompagnée d'annexes a été reçue par cette juridiction.
On 3 December 2019 a letter from [the applicant] with annexes was received at this court.
1.8.
1.8.


Le 10 décembre 2019, cette affaire a été entendue oralement en même temps que la procédure de requête pendante devant cette juridiction sous les numéros C/10/576071 / HA RK 19-693, C/10/576079 / HA RK 19-696, C/10/576083 / HA RK 19-697, C/10/576085 / HA RK 19-698, C/10/576091 / HA RK 19-701, C/10/576094 / HA RK 19-702, C/10/576096 / HA RK 19-703, C/10/576110 / HA RK 19-706, C/10/576126 / HA RK 19-707, C/10/576129 / HA RK 19-708, C/10/576131 / HA RK 19-709 et C/10/576134 / HA RK 19-710.
On 10 December 2019, this case was heard orally at the same time as the petition proceedings pending before this court with case number C/10/576071 / HA RK 19-693, C/10/576079 / HA RK 19-696, C/10/576083 / HA RK 19-697, C/10/576085 / HA RK 19-698, C/10/576091 / HA RK 19-701, C/10/576094 / HA RK 19-702, C/10/576096 / HA RK 19-703, C/10/576110 / HA RK 19-706, C/10/576126 / HA RK 19-707, C/10/576129 / HA RK 19-708, C/10/576131 / HA RK 19-709 and C/10/576134 / HA RK 19-710.
1.9.
1.9.


Enfin, la décision a été adoptée aujourd'hui.
Finally, the decision has been adopted today.
2 Les faits
2 The facts
2.1.
2.1.


Par lettre du 25 mai 2018, [le demandeur] a demandé à l'État de contrôler le traitement de ses données personnelles et de celles de la défunte Mme [nom du défunt].
By letter dated 25 May 2018, [applicant] requested the State to inspect the processing of his personal data and that of the deceased Mrs [name of deceased].
2.2.
2.2.


La lettre susmentionnée a également été reçue par l'État le 25 mai 2018.
The aforementioned letter was also received by the State on 25 May 2018.
2.3.
2.3.


Dans une lettre datée du 25 juin 2018, l'État a informé [le demandeur] que, dans le but de préciser davantage, le délai d'un mois devrait être prolongé de deux mois.
In a letter dated 25 June 2018, the State informed [the applicant] that, with a view to further specification, the period of one month should be extended by two months.
2.4.
2.4.


Par lettre datée du 28 août 2018, l'État a statué sur la demande [du demandeur]. Il conclut :
By letter dated 28 August 2018, the State decided on [the applicant's] request. It concludes:


"'Sur la base du GAV, vous avez droit à un aperçu des données à caractère personnel (voir annexe A). Votre demande d'accès aux documents de votre dossier ne peut être satisfaite, pour les raisons exposées ci-dessus".
"'On the basis of the AVG, you are entitled to an overview of personal data (see Appendix A). Your request for access to documents in your case file cannot be granted, for the reasons set out above'.
3 Le litige
3 The dispute
3.1.
3.1.


Le demandeur demande que l'État soit tenu de lui accorder l'accès au dossier dans lequel il est impliqué. À l'appui de sa demande, [le demandeur] fait valoir que l'État n'a pas fourni d'informations sur la suite donnée à la demande sans délai et dans les délais prévus par le règlement général sur la protection des données (UE) 2016/679 (AVG) après réception de sa demande d'accès. À l'occasion de l'audience, [le requérant] a fait valoir que les dossiers pertinents dans lesquels il était impliqué contenaient des faux. En donnant accès à ces dossiers, [le demandeur] souhaite prouver son innocence.
The applicant seeks an order that the State be ordered to grant [the applicant] access to the case-file in which he is involved. In support of his application, [the applicant] submits that the State failed to provide information on the action taken on the application without delay and within the time limits laid down in the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (AVG) following receipt of his application for access. On the occasion of the oral hearing, [the applicant] claimed that the relevant case files in which he was involved contained forgeries. By granting access to those case-files, [the applicant] wishes to prove his innocence.
3.2.
3.2.


L'État présente un moyen de défense et fait valoir que [le requérant] devrait être déclaré irrecevable dans sa demande, ou du moins que sa demande devrait être rejetée, et que [le requérant] devrait être condamné aux dépens. À cet égard, l'État affirme qu'il a déjà statué sur les demandes [du demandeur]. Le requérant n'a pas non plus déclaré et expliqué pourquoi le contenu de ces décisions est incorrect. En outre, les demandes de [la requérante] ne font pas partie de cette procédure.
The State puts forward a defence and claims that [the applicant] should be declared inadmissible in his application, or at least that his application should be rejected, and that [the applicant] should be ordered to pay the costs. In that regard, the State claims that it has already decided on [the applicant's] applications. Nor has [the applicant] stated and explained why the content of those decisions is incorrect. Moreover, the applications of [the applicant] do not form part of these proceedings.
3.3.
3.3.


Les arguments des parties sont exposés plus en détail ci-dessous, le cas échéant.
The arguments of the parties are set out in more detail below, where relevant.
4 L'évaluation
4 The assessment
la recevabilité de la demande [du demandeur]
the admissibility of [the applicant] in his application
4.1.
4.1.


Conformément à l'article 12, paragraphe 3, de la LVA et à l'article 34 de la loi d'application de la LVA, le responsable du traitement fournira des informations sur la suite donnée à la demande dans un délai d'un mois à compter de sa réception par la personne concernée. Si nécessaire, ce délai peut être prolongé de deux mois.
Pursuant to Section 12(3) of the AVG and Section 34 of the AVG Implementation Act (UAVG), the data controller will provide information on the action taken on the request within one month of receiving it from the person concerned. If necessary, this period may be extended by two months.
4.2.
4.2.


L'article 35, paragraphe 1, de l'UAVG prévoit qu'une personne concernée peut contester une décision d'un responsable du traitement sur une demande en se fondant, entre autres, sur l'article 15 de l'AVG. L'article 35, paragraphe 2, de l'AVG prévoit qu'une telle requête doit être présentée au tribunal dans les six semaines suivant la réception de la réponse du responsable du traitement à la demande, étant entendu qu'une exception s'applique si le responsable du traitement n'a pas répondu dans le délai prévu à l'article 12, paragraphe 3, de l'AVG.
Article 35 paragraph 1 UAVG provides that a data subject may challenge a decision of a data controller on a request on the basis of, among other things, Article 15 AVG. Article 35 (2) UAVG provides that such a petition must be submitted to the court within six weeks of receipt of the response from the data controller to the request, on the understanding that an exception applies if the data controller has not responded within the period specified in Article 12 (3) AVG.
4.3.
4.3.


La Cour constate que - contrairement à ce que l'État suggère dans sa lettre du 28 août 2018 - la demande du [requérant] du 25 mai 2018 a également été reçue par l'État le 25 mai 2018, comme en témoigne le cachet imprimé de l'État sur la demande précitée. Le 25 juin 2018, l'État a prolongé le délai de deux mois supplémentaires, ce qui signifie que l'État aurait dû répondre à la demande au plus tard le 25 août 2018. Le 28 août 2018, l'État a répondu sans délai, mais avec trois jours de retard, en indiquant qu'il ne répondait pas à la demande [du demandeur]. Par la suite, [demandeur] a soumis la demande, datée du 30 janvier 2019, à la juridiction [nom de la juridiction] ou à l'État. C'est plus de six semaines après la réponse de l'État et donc, en principe, également trop tard. L'État n'ayant pas répondu à la demande du 25 mai 2018 dans les délais prévus par la LVA, il n'est pas question de dépassement du délai par le demandeur. Le fait qu'il ait apparemment fallu quelques jours avant que la demande de [demandeur] n'atteigne le service compétent du tribunal [nom du tribunal] ou de l'État au niveau interne ne peut être invoqué contre [demandeur]. Dans les relations entre les parties, cela doit rester aux frais et aux risques de l'État selon les normes de la raison et de l'équité. Dans les circonstances données, [le demandeur] est dans ce cas admissible dans sa demande.
The Court finds that - contrary to what the State suggests in its letter of 28 August 2018 - the request of [applicant] of 25 May 2018 was also received by the State on 25 May 2018, as evidenced by the printed stamp of the State on the aforementioned request. On 25 June 2018, the State extended the deadline by a further two months, which means that the State should have replied to the request no later than 25 August 2018. On 28 August 2018, the State replied without delay, but three days late, stating that it was not responding to [the applicant's] request. Subsequently, [applicant] submitted the application, dated 30 January 2019, to the court [name of court] or the State. This is more than six weeks after the State's response and therefore, in principle, also too late. Now that the State has failed to respond to [the applicant's] request of 25 May 2018 within the time limits set out in the AVG, there is no question of [the applicant] exceeding the time limit. The fact that it apparently took a few days before [applicant's] request reached the correct department of the court [name of the court] or the State internally cannot be invoked against [applicant]. In the relationship between the parties this should remain at the expense and risk of the State according to standards of reasonableness and fairness. In the given circumstances [applicant] is in this case admissible in his application.


cadre d'évaluation
assessment framework
4.4.
4.4.


Le droit d'accès précédemment prévu à l'article 12 de la directive 95/46 relative à la protection de la vie privée est désormais inclus dans l'article 15 de la LVA. Ce droit a pour but de permettre à la personne concernée de consulter les données personnelles collectées à son sujet et de vérifier que ces données sont correctes et ont été légalement enregistrées. Pour l'instant, rien n'indique que l'objectif et la portée de ce droit d'accès aient changé par rapport à la directive sur la protection des données personnelles, de sorte que la jurisprudence sur le droit d'accès qui a été établie à l'époque de la directive sur la protection des données personnelles s'applique toujours maintenant que la directive sur la protection des données personnelles est en vigueur.
The right of access previously laid down in Article 12 of the Privacy Directive 95/46 has now been included in Article 15 of the AVG. The purpose of this right is to enable the data subject to inspect the personal data collected about him or her and to check that these data are correct and have been lawfully recorded. For the time being, there are no indications that under the AVG the objective and scope of this right of access has changed compared to the Privacy Directive, so that case law on the right of access that was established at the time of the Privacy Directive still applies now that the AVG is in force.
4.5.
4.5.


L'article 15, paragraphe 3, de la LDA donne le droit à une copie des données personnelles traitées. Les documents en tant que tels ne sont pas des données personnelles et l'AVG ne fait pas référence à la fourniture d'une copie des documents dans lesquels les données personnelles ont été traitées. Le droit d'inspection ne signifie donc pas que la personne concernée a un droit d'inspection ou de copie des documents ou des dossiers en tant que tels s'ils contiennent ses données personnelles. Toutefois, il existe un droit à un aperçu complet, sous une forme compréhensible, de toutes les données à caractère personnel. En d'autres termes, sous une forme qui permette à la personne concernée de consulter ses données et de vérifier qu'elles sont correctes et ont été traitées légalement. Dans la mesure où une autre forme de divulgation peut y répondre, la personne concernée ne peut pas obtenir de l'AVG le droit d'obtenir une copie du document ou du dossier original contenant les données (CJCE 17 juillet 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2081). La forme matérielle concrète sous laquelle les données doivent être fournies dépend donc des circonstances concrètes.
Article 15 paragraph 3 of the AVG gives the right to a copy of the personal data being processed. Documents as such are not personal data and the AVG does not refer to the provision of a copy of the documents in which the personal data have been processed. The right of inspection therefore does not mean that the person concerned has a right of inspection or copies of the documents or files as such if they contain his or her personal data. However, there is a right to a complete overview, in comprehensible form, of all personal data. In other words, in a form that enables the data subject to inspect his or her data and to check that they are correct and have been processed lawfully. Insofar as this can be met by another form of disclosure, the data subject cannot derive the right from the AVG to obtain a copy of the original document or file containing the data (ECJ 17 July 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2081). The concrete material form in which the data must be provided therefore depends on the concrete circumstances.


évaluation du contenu de la demande
assessment of the substance of the request
4.6.
4.6.


Maintenant que la demande [du demandeur] est recevable, le fond de la demande sera évalué. Le tribunal de district est d'avis que ce que [le demandeur] a présenté est insuffisant pour faire droit à la demande. Les circonstances suivantes jouent un rôle à cet égard.
Now that [the applicant's] application is admissible, the substance of the application will be assessed. The District Court is of the opinion that what [the applicant] has submitted is insufficient to grant the application. The following circumstances play a role in this.
4.7.
4.7.


À l'occasion de l'audience, [le demandeur] a déclaré explicitement et sans équivoque qu'il demande l'accès aux dossiers de procédure que la juridiction [nom de la juridiction] ou l'État a traités en relation avec [le demandeur]. Le tribunal comprend donc que l'accès aux dossiers de procédure est demandé dans les cas où [le demandeur] a été impliqué en tant que partie à la procédure. La demande n'est pas recevable. Les parties à la procédure judiciaire disposent de leur propre dossier contenant les documents de procédure et les copies des lettres dans l'affaire en question.
On the occasion of the oral hearing [the applicant] explicitly and unequivocally stated that he requests access to procedural files that the court [name of the court] or the State has dealt with in relation to [the applicant]. The court thus understands that access is requested to procedural files in cases in which [applicant] was involved as a party to the proceedings. The request does not qualify for granting. The parties to legal proceedings have their own case file containing the procedural documents and copies of letters in the case in question.
4.8.
4.8.


Le tribunal de district est d'avis que la demande ne remplit pas non plus les conditions d'octroi, car [le demandeur] commet un abus de droit au sens de l'article 3:13 du code civil en introduisant fréquemment des demandes sur la base de l'AVG. Le droit d'inspection a pour but de permettre à la personne concernée de prendre connaissance des données à caractère personnel collectées à son sujet et de vérifier si ces données sont correctes et ont été traitées légalement. À l'occasion de l'audience, [le requérant] a déclaré qu'il avait présenté ces demandes uniquement pour prouver son innocence à l'aide de documents relatifs à des dossiers de procédure auxquels il était partie. Dans la mesure où il doit être établi que le but poursuivi par [le demandeur] n'est pas de vérifier l'exactitude et la licéité de ses données à caractère personnel, mais d'obtenir des informations qu'il souhaite utiliser afin de fournir des preuves (supplémentaires) de son innocence dans le cadre d'une éventuelle procédure engagée contre l'État. La finalité du droit d'inspection [du demandeur] ne concerne pas la protection des données à caractère personnel, de sorte qu'il y a abus de droit.
The District Court is of the opinion that the application does not qualify for granting either, because [the applicant] is committing an abuse of rights within the meaning of Article 3:13 of the Civil Code by frequently submitting applications on the basis of the AVG. The purpose of the right of inspection is to enable the data subject to take cognizance of the personal data collected about him or her and to check whether those data are correct and have been processed lawfully. On the occasion of the oral hearing, [the applicant] stated that he submitted these requests solely to prove his innocence with documents relating to procedural files in which he was a party to the proceedings. In so far as it must be established that the purpose pursued by [the applicant] is not to verify the accuracy and lawfulness of his personal data, but to obtain information which he wishes to use in order to provide (further) evidence of his innocence in any proceedings to be brought against the State. The purpose of [the applicant]'s right of inspection does not concern the protection of personal data, so that there is an abuse of rights.
4.9.
4.9.


La conclusion de ce qui précède est que la demande [du demandeur] est rejetée.
The conclusion of the above is that [applicant's] request is rejected.
4.10.
4.10.


4.10. Le [demandeur] est condamné, en tant que partie succombante, aux dépens de la procédure de l'État. Les coûts de la procédure ont été estimés jusqu'à présent par l'État à un montant de 639,00 € en frais de greffe et à un salaire d'avocat nul. Maintenant, l'État dans la présente affaire et dans les affaires portant les numéros C/10/576071 / HA RK 19-693, C/10/576079 / HA RK 19-696, C/10/576091 / HA RK 19-701, C/10/576096 / HA RK 19-703 et C/10/576129 / HA RK 19-708 ont mené la même défense, un point a été attribué au salaire de l'avocat dans l'affaire portant le numéro C/10/576071 / HA RK 19-693. Dans les autres cas, comme le présent, aucun point n'est donc attribué au salaire d'un avocat.
4.10. Orders [applicant], as the unsuccessful party, to pay the costs of the proceedings of the State. The costs of the proceedings have so far been estimated on the part of the State at an amount of € 639.00 in court registry fees and nil lawyer's salary. Now the State in the present case and in the cases with case number C/10/576071 / HA RK 19-693, C/10/576079 / HA RK 19-696, C/10/576091 / HA RK 19-701, C/10/576096 / HA RK 19-703 and C/10/576129 / HA RK 19-708 conducted the same defence, one point was awarded to the lawyer's salary in the case with case number C/10/576071 / HA RK 19-693. In the other cases, such as the present one, no point is therefore awarded to an attorney at law salary.
5 La décision
5 The decision


Le tribunal
The court
5.1.
5.1.


Rejette la demande ;
Rejects the request;
5.2.
5.2.


2) La requérante est condamnée aux dépens de la procédure, évalués au nom de l'État à
Orders [the applicant] to pay the costs of the proceedings, assessed on the State's behalf at


€ 639,00.
€ 639,00.


Cette décision a été prise par M. A.F.L. Geerdes et prononcée en public le 21 janvier 2020.
This decision was taken by Mr A.F.L. Geerdes and pronounced in public on 21 January 2020.


2897/676
2897/676
</pre>
</pre>

Revision as of 13:49, 4 February 2020

Rb. Rotterdam - C/10/576074/HA RK 19-694
CourtsNL.png
Court: Rb. Rotterdam (Netherlands)
Jurisdiction: Netherlands
Relevant Law: Article 15(3) GDPR

Article 12 ePrivacy Directive

Decided: 21. 01. 2020
Published: 23. 01. 2020
Parties: The State of the Netherlands vs. Anonymous
National Case Number: C/10/576074/HA RK 19-6941
European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:NL:RBROT:2020:483
Appeal from: n/a
Language: Dutch
Original Source: De Rechtspraak (in NL)

The Rotterdam Court of First Instance considered that access request to procedural files before the State of the Netherlands was inadmissible. The Court ruled that the data subject does not automatically have the right to inspect or copy the documents or files containing their personal data under Article 15(3) GDPR and Article 12 of the ePrivacy Directive. However, there is a right to a complete overview, in comprehensible form, of all personal data.

English Summary

Facts

The plaintiff asked to the State to grant him access to procedural files in which he was involved against the State of the Netherlands concerning forgeries offence. The applicant claimed that the procedural files contained his personal data and evidences which could help him to prove his innocence in the aforementioned case. The State refused to grant him the access.

Dispute

The Court clarified the interplay between the right to inspection under the ePrivacy Directive and the right to access under the GDPR.

Holding

First the Court clarified that both the ePrivacy Directive and the GDPR apply. It considered that the right of inspection of document including personal data is not absolute. However, it stated that the access right and the right of inspection have to be understood as a right to a complete overview of all personal data, in a form that enables the data subject to inspect his or her data and to check that they are correct and have been processed lawfully. Regarding the format, the Court recalled that the data subject cannot expect to be provided with the original document and that the material form depends on the concrete circumstances.

Then the court considered that the applicant's purpose was not to verify the accuracy and lawfulness of the personal data processed but to use them to prove his innocence in the case he was involved against the State and in any proceedings to be brought against the State. Thus, the court ruled that the applicant could not invoke the right to inspection because his claim did not concern the protection of his personal data and therefore, there was an abuse of rights.

As a consequence, the court considered the applicant's claim inadmissible.

Comment

Share your comment here!

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!

English Machine Translation of the Decision

The decision below is a machine translation of the original. Please refer to the Dutch original for more details. 

ROTTERDAM COURT

Trade and port team

Case number / petition number: C/10/576074 / HA RK 19-694

Decision of 21 January 2020

in the matter of

[applicant] ,

residing at [place of residence of applicant] ,

petitioner,

appeared in person,

and

the public-law entity

THE STATE OF THE NETHERLANDS,

established in The Hague ,

defendant,

attorney at law M.M.C. van Graafeiland, The Hague.

The parties will hereinafter be referred to as [applicant] and the State.
1 The procedure
1.1.

An application dated 30 January 2019 with productions 1 to 7 was received at the Registry of the District Court [name of the District Court].
1.2.

By order of 21 May 2019, the Subdistrict Court of the District Court [name of court] referred the case, as it stands, to the Commercial Team of the District Court [name of court] .
1.3.

By order of 14 June 2019, the district court [name of district court] referred the case, as it stood, to the Rotterdam District Court.
1.4.

By letter dated 1 October 2019, Mr. Van Graafeiland acted on behalf of the State.
1.5.

Contrary to her letter of 1 October 2019, by letter of 13 November 2019, Mr. Van Graafeiland stated that she exclusively stood up on behalf of the State in the present case and in the cases with case numbers C/10/576071 / HA RK 19-693, C/10/576079 / HA RK 19-696, C/10/576091 / HA RK 19-701, C/10/576096 / HA RK 19-703 and C/10/576129 / HA RK 19-708. This means that she has not acted as an attorney at law on behalf of the State in the present case.
1.6.

On 2 December 2019 a statement of defence with productions 1.1 up to and including 2c was received at the Registry of this District Court.
1.7.

On 3 December 2019 a letter from [the applicant] with annexes was received at this court.
1.8.

On 10 December 2019, this case was heard orally at the same time as the petition proceedings pending before this court with case number C/10/576071 / HA RK 19-693, C/10/576079 / HA RK 19-696, C/10/576083 / HA RK 19-697, C/10/576085 / HA RK 19-698, C/10/576091 / HA RK 19-701, C/10/576094 / HA RK 19-702, C/10/576096 / HA RK 19-703, C/10/576110 / HA RK 19-706, C/10/576126 / HA RK 19-707, C/10/576129 / HA RK 19-708, C/10/576131 / HA RK 19-709 and C/10/576134 / HA RK 19-710.
1.9.

Finally, the decision has been adopted today.
2 The facts
2.1.

By letter dated 25 May 2018, [applicant] requested the State to inspect the processing of his personal data and that of the deceased Mrs [name of deceased].
2.2.

The aforementioned letter was also received by the State on 25 May 2018.
2.3.

In a letter dated 25 June 2018, the State informed [the applicant] that, with a view to further specification, the period of one month should be extended by two months.
2.4.

By letter dated 28 August 2018, the State decided on [the applicant's] request. It concludes:

"'On the basis of the AVG, you are entitled to an overview of personal data (see Appendix A). Your request for access to documents in your case file cannot be granted, for the reasons set out above'.
3 The dispute
3.1.

The applicant seeks an order that the State be ordered to grant [the applicant] access to the case-file in which he is involved. In support of his application, [the applicant] submits that the State failed to provide information on the action taken on the application without delay and within the time limits laid down in the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (AVG) following receipt of his application for access. On the occasion of the oral hearing, [the applicant] claimed that the relevant case files in which he was involved contained forgeries. By granting access to those case-files, [the applicant] wishes to prove his innocence.
3.2.

The State puts forward a defence and claims that [the applicant] should be declared inadmissible in his application, or at least that his application should be rejected, and that [the applicant] should be ordered to pay the costs. In that regard, the State claims that it has already decided on [the applicant's] applications. Nor has [the applicant] stated and explained why the content of those decisions is incorrect. Moreover, the applications of [the applicant] do not form part of these proceedings.
3.3.

The arguments of the parties are set out in more detail below, where relevant.
4 The assessment
the admissibility of [the applicant] in his application
4.1.

Pursuant to Section 12(3) of the AVG and Section 34 of the AVG Implementation Act (UAVG), the data controller will provide information on the action taken on the request within one month of receiving it from the person concerned. If necessary, this period may be extended by two months.
4.2.

Article 35 paragraph 1 UAVG provides that a data subject may challenge a decision of a data controller on a request on the basis of, among other things, Article 15 AVG. Article 35 (2) UAVG provides that such a petition must be submitted to the court within six weeks of receipt of the response from the data controller to the request, on the understanding that an exception applies if the data controller has not responded within the period specified in Article 12 (3) AVG.
4.3.

The Court finds that - contrary to what the State suggests in its letter of 28 August 2018 - the request of [applicant] of 25 May 2018 was also received by the State on 25 May 2018, as evidenced by the printed stamp of the State on the aforementioned request. On 25 June 2018, the State extended the deadline by a further two months, which means that the State should have replied to the request no later than 25 August 2018. On 28 August 2018, the State replied without delay, but three days late, stating that it was not responding to [the applicant's] request. Subsequently, [applicant] submitted the application, dated 30 January 2019, to the court [name of court] or the State. This is more than six weeks after the State's response and therefore, in principle, also too late. Now that the State has failed to respond to [the applicant's] request of 25 May 2018 within the time limits set out in the AVG, there is no question of [the applicant] exceeding the time limit. The fact that it apparently took a few days before [applicant's] request reached the correct department of the court [name of the court] or the State internally cannot be invoked against [applicant]. In the relationship between the parties this should remain at the expense and risk of the State according to standards of reasonableness and fairness. In the given circumstances [applicant] is in this case admissible in his application.

assessment framework
4.4.

The right of access previously laid down in Article 12 of the Privacy Directive 95/46 has now been included in Article 15 of the AVG. The purpose of this right is to enable the data subject to inspect the personal data collected about him or her and to check that these data are correct and have been lawfully recorded. For the time being, there are no indications that under the AVG the objective and scope of this right of access has changed compared to the Privacy Directive, so that case law on the right of access that was established at the time of the Privacy Directive still applies now that the AVG is in force.
4.5.

Article 15 paragraph 3 of the AVG gives the right to a copy of the personal data being processed. Documents as such are not personal data and the AVG does not refer to the provision of a copy of the documents in which the personal data have been processed. The right of inspection therefore does not mean that the person concerned has a right of inspection or copies of the documents or files as such if they contain his or her personal data. However, there is a right to a complete overview, in comprehensible form, of all personal data. In other words, in a form that enables the data subject to inspect his or her data and to check that they are correct and have been processed lawfully. Insofar as this can be met by another form of disclosure, the data subject cannot derive the right from the AVG to obtain a copy of the original document or file containing the data (ECJ 17 July 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2081). The concrete material form in which the data must be provided therefore depends on the concrete circumstances.

assessment of the substance of the request
4.6.

Now that [the applicant's] application is admissible, the substance of the application will be assessed. The District Court is of the opinion that what [the applicant] has submitted is insufficient to grant the application. The following circumstances play a role in this.
4.7.

On the occasion of the oral hearing [the applicant] explicitly and unequivocally stated that he requests access to procedural files that the court [name of the court] or the State has dealt with in relation to [the applicant]. The court thus understands that access is requested to procedural files in cases in which [applicant] was involved as a party to the proceedings. The request does not qualify for granting. The parties to legal proceedings have their own case file containing the procedural documents and copies of letters in the case in question.
4.8.

The District Court is of the opinion that the application does not qualify for granting either, because [the applicant] is committing an abuse of rights within the meaning of Article 3:13 of the Civil Code by frequently submitting applications on the basis of the AVG. The purpose of the right of inspection is to enable the data subject to take cognizance of the personal data collected about him or her and to check whether those data are correct and have been processed lawfully. On the occasion of the oral hearing, [the applicant] stated that he submitted these requests solely to prove his innocence with documents relating to procedural files in which he was a party to the proceedings. In so far as it must be established that the purpose pursued by [the applicant] is not to verify the accuracy and lawfulness of his personal data, but to obtain information which he wishes to use in order to provide (further) evidence of his innocence in any proceedings to be brought against the State. The purpose of [the applicant]'s right of inspection does not concern the protection of personal data, so that there is an abuse of rights.
4.9.

The conclusion of the above is that [applicant's] request is rejected.
4.10.

4.10. Orders [applicant], as the unsuccessful party, to pay the costs of the proceedings of the State. The costs of the proceedings have so far been estimated on the part of the State at an amount of € 639.00 in court registry fees and nil lawyer's salary. Now the State in the present case and in the cases with case number C/10/576071 / HA RK 19-693, C/10/576079 / HA RK 19-696, C/10/576091 / HA RK 19-701, C/10/576096 / HA RK 19-703 and C/10/576129 / HA RK 19-708 conducted the same defence, one point was awarded to the lawyer's salary in the case with case number C/10/576071 / HA RK 19-693. In the other cases, such as the present one, no point is therefore awarded to an attorney at law salary.
5 The decision

The court
5.1.

Rejects the request;
5.2.

Orders [the applicant] to pay the costs of the proceedings, assessed on the State's behalf at

€ 639,00.

This decision was taken by Mr A.F.L. Geerdes and pronounced in public on 21 January 2020.

2897/676
Retrieved from "https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=Rb._Rotterdam_-_C/10/576074/HA_RK_19-694&oldid=8499"
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
Powered by MediaWiki