RvS - 202000944/1/A3
| RvS - 202000944/1/A3 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| 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 19/1600 |
| 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
Facts
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.
Dispute
Appellant is challenging the decision.
Holding
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.
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.
