RvS - 202000944/1/A3

From GDPRhub
Revision as of 20:23, 19 October 2020 by Curious Mouse (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{COURTdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Netherlands |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png |Court_Abbrevation=RvS |Court_With_Country=RvS (Netherlands) |Case_Number_Name=2020...")
(diff) โ† Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision โ†’ (diff)
RvS - 202000944/1/A3
Courts logo1.png
Court: RvS (Netherlands)
Jurisdiction: Netherlands
Relevant Law: Article 15(1) GDPR
Article 15(1)(g) GDPR
Article 17(3) GDPR
Article 3 Archiefwet 1995
Article 5 Archiefwet 1995
Decided: 14.10.2020
Published: 14.10.2020
Parties: Municipality of Eindhoven
National Case Number/Name: 202000944/1/A3
European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:NL:RVS:2020:2419
Appeal from: Rechtbank Oost-Brabant
Appeal to: Unknown
Original Language(s): Dutch
Original Source: De Rechtspraak (in Dutch)
Initial Contributor: n/a

The Council of State held that the appellant cannot use Article 15 GDPR to find out the name of a person who reported to the municipality that he might not be entitled to receive certain benefits. Appellant also cannot have his bank details erased by the municipality because of an obligation to keep them under another law.

English Summary


Appellant has been receiving welfare since 2011. In 2017, the municipality carried out an investigation triggered by an anonymous tip. As a result of this investigation the municipality concluded that the appellant had no right to receive the benefit and was supposed to pay it back. Appellant submitted a series of access and erasure requests to the municipality in 2018. Among other things, he wanted to have his bank details erased and he wanted to obtain access to the name of the reporter whose tip led to the investigation. The municipality refused to provide both and Court of First Instance upheld this part of the municipality's decision.


Appellant is challenging the decision.


The Council declared the appeal invalid.

Appellant cannot access the name of the reporter because: a) the municipality says it doesn't have it and there is no reason to doubt that; b) even if they did have the name, appellant is not entitled to have access to it because it doesn't relate to him; c) the reporter is not the source of information, so Article 15(1)(g) does not apply.

Appellant also cannot have his bank details removed because of the Archive act 1995 (Archiefwet 1995): the municipality is under the legal obligation to keep the information about social benefits for 10 years.


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.