On November 23, 2020, the Dutch District Court docket of Midden-Nederland (the “Court”) identified that the thought of a respectable fascination for processing is broader than only being an fascination derived from legislation, overturning a high-quality by the Dutch data protection authority (the “Dutch DPA”).
The Dutch DPA, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, issued a €575,000 good in July 2020 against VoetbalTV, which authorized soccer players and followers to look at experienced movie footage of beginner matches on its platform, on the basis that it lacked a legal basis for its processing of personalized details, as necessary by Article 6(1) of the EU Basic Facts Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). Therefore, VoetbalTV was also regarded as to have infringed GDPR Article 5(1)(a), which sets out the details defense basic principle that processing need to be carried out lawfully.
Precisely, the Dutch DPA took a restrictive interpretation of reputable pursuits that can be relied upon to legitimize the processing of personalized information pursuant to Write-up 6(1)(f) of the GDPR. In accordance to the Dutch DPA, a legit curiosity is just one designated as a authorized curiosity below regulation, and ought to have an “urgent and precise character” deriving from a rule or theory of legislation. In accordance to the Dutch DPA, purely industrial interests do not constitute a genuine fascination that can serve as a lawful basis for info processing activities less than the GDPR.
In overturning the Dutch DPA’s decision, the court docket relied on steering issued by the European Information Protection Board (the “EDPB”), which delivers that legit interests can address a variety of unique pursuits, provided that they are serious and present (not speculative), this means that all kinds of factual, economic and idealistic passions can qualify as authentic interests.
The Court docket endorsed the placement of VoetbalTV, which argued for a wide interpretation of the notion of a authentic fascination, stating that such an curiosity must be viewed as to be existing except the desire is opposite to the regulation (and delivered that the interests or elementary legal rights and freedoms of the information topic are not overriding). In performing so, the Courtroom also relied on translations of the GDPR principles of reputable interest and authorized obligation in Dutch, German and French, which reveal a obvious difference involving the distinctive lawful bases for processing. The Court also thought of this broad interpretation to be in line with Recital 47 of the GDPR, which gives that direct internet marketing may well constitute a genuine interest. The Court docket commented that the legit desire thought must be interpreted as an “an external border . . . and not as a threshold.”
The Court also identified that the Dutch DPA had not taken adequate treatment in generating its conclusion, as it stopped its investigation just after pinpointing that no legit curiosity existed, fairly than contemplating the validity of the balancing test carried out by VoetbalTV.
Copyright © 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Legal rights Reserved.Countrywide Legislation Overview, Volume X, Amount 336