Search results

The Court of First Instance of the Central Netherlands confirmed that the Dutch DPA (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens) is obliged to either send a progress

and his attorney before the District Court, Central Netherlands. The District Court, Central Netherlands stayed the proceedings and referred the following

The District Court of Midden-Nederland held that the definition of “personal data” generally includes a data subjects’ alias, but that this did not apply

The Dutch District Court Midden-Nederland ruled that a general request to rectify all changes to an employee file, managed by the municipality, was not

The Court of First Instance of the Central Netherlands ruled that the Dutch sickness benefits act is compatible with the GDPR. The Dutch Employee Insurance

The Central Netherlands District Court awarded a data subject €707 in damages for a controller's late response to an access request. The controller was

The Court of First Instance of the Central Netherlands decided the processing of data between several local authorities to prevent abuse of the Freedom

The District Court of Central Netherlands (Rb. Midden-Nederland) held in a preliminary ruling that AVROTROS can broadcast an episode of the television

The Court of First Instance of the Central Netherlands (Rechtbank Midden-Nederland) ruled on when the Dutch Data Protection Act or the GDPR applies. The

The data subject appealed this decision before the District Court Midden-Nederland. Among others, the data subject argued that if the DPA lacked competence

The District Court Midden-Nederland held that a data subject had the right to a copy of personal data being processed and not the actual documents in which

The District Court of Central Netherlands (Rb. Midden-Nederland) held that the child protection service Samen Veilig was wrong to limit the complainant's

After Google rejected the request, complainant asked the District Court Midden-Nederland to order google to remove the references to the ten internet addresses

The District Court of Midden-Nederland held that the Dutch DPA could reject a complaint when there was still a court case pending on the legal question

The District Court of Midden-Nederland held that the Municipal Executive of the municipality of Utrechtse Heuvelrug was a controller responsible for the

The Court of First Instance of the Central Netherlands ordered an organisation to provide a data subject with certain emails of its employees sent to third

The District Court Midden-Nederland rejected a data subject’s claim to receive copies of emails containing his personal data because he did not specifically

The District Court Midden-Nederland rejected a data subject’s claim that processing by the Tax Authority had been unlawful because Article 6(1)(e) GDPR

The District Court of Midden-Nederland held that to comply with an article 15(1) GDPR request a copy of documents did not need to be provided and that

The Court of First Instance of the Central Netherlands ruled on the portrait rights and the GDPR. SIN-NL is a foundation that works to improve the position

The Court of First Instance of the Central Netherlands ruled on the appeal against a decision by the Dutch Data Protection Authority regarding processing

The Court of First Instance of the Central Netherlands ruled that voice fragment is (biometric) personal data but in this case it was used in the context

The District Court of Midden-Nederland (Rb. Midden-Nederland) ruled that the right to rectification of inaccuracies contained in a medical report cannot

case before the court. The District Court of Midden-Nederland (Rechtbank Midden-Nederland - Rb. Midden-Nederland) heard the case. The Court stated that the

The District Court of Central Netherlands held that VoetbalTV doesn’t have to pay a fine issued by the Dutch DPA. The court did not agree with the restrictive

The Court of First Instance of the Central Netherlands submitted preliminary questions to the CJEU on the interpretation of Article 55(3) GDPR. The questions

original. Please refer to the Dutch original for more details. COURT CENTRAL NETHERLANDS Civil rights Chamber of Commerce location Utrecht case number / application

The biggest internet service provider in the Netherlands (Ziggo) is not obliged to send a warning letter to its customer(s) on behalf of Stichting BREIN

The Court of First Instance of the Central Netherlands found that the personal data of a claimant's child was illegally shared with the Dutch tax office

The District Court Midden-Nederland ruled in an interlocutory injunction that a copyright watchdog could not force an internet service provider to forward

the judgment of the Interim Injunction Judge in the District Court of Midden-Nederland of 20 February 2019; orders [the appellant] to pay the costs of the

to cooperate voluntarily. Therefore, Brein filed a submission at the Midden-Nederland Court of First Instance (Rechtbank) to force Ziggo to send the warning

2019 rendered by the Interim Injunction Judge in the District Court of Midden-Nederland, location Utrecht. 2. The appeal proceedings 2.1 The course of the

residing at [residence], against the judgment of the District Court of Midden-Nederland of 31 January 2019 in Case No 18/1037 in the proceedings between: [appellants]

department, trade case number court of appeal 200.307.830 (case number Central Netherlands court, location Utrecht, 9485684) decision of 5 July 2022 in the case

Authority (hereinafter: the AP), appellant, against the judgment of the Midden-Nederland District Court of 23 November 2020 in case no. 20/2315 in the proceedings

declare the complaint inadmissible. In June 2020, the District Court of Midden-Nederland ruled on the appeal. The District Court reversed the BFT's January

District Court of Midden-Nederland already expressed an opinion on the subject in the VoetbalTV case. Here, the Court (Midden-Nederland) held that not only

July 2019 of the Interim Injunction Judge of the District Court of Midden-Nederland it was ruled that the delivery in question as such does not have to

behalf. Moreover, the Court referred to the reasoning of the Court of Midden-Nederland in its judgement of 15 October 2020, regarding the question within