Articles

Dutch government violated Article 8 ECHR by requesting and saving personal data in central register

Dutch government violated Article 8 ECHR by requesting and saving personal data in central register

Dutch government violated Article 8 ECHR by requesting and saving personal data in central register

15.07.2014

Recently, the Court of Appeal of The Hague held that the storage of Dutch citizens’ personal data in a central register is an unjustified violation of the right to privacy.

In light of, amongst other things, the implementation of the European regulation on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents, and to comply with this regulation, the Dutch Passport Act was amended in 2009. This new Passport Act states that future

passports would have to contain a chip with a digital facial image and two fingerprints of each applicant. The Dutch government therefore planned to create a central register to hold the facial image files and four fingerprints of each applicant (two of which are included in the passport for identity verification). This new register would also serve other purposes: it would help passport fraud control, and it would allow applicants to renew their passport in any municipality in the Netherlands. The national government acknowledged that the request and saving of these personal data would form a violation of the right to privacy of Dutch citizens, but the government stated that the data storage was proportionate and justified, considering the intended purposes.

The interest group Privacy First disagreed with the government. This group, which seeks to publicly promote the enhancement and preservation of the right to privacy, believed that the creation of this central register violates this fundamental right enshrined in several international laws and regulations. The group launched legal proceedings against the Dutch government. The district court of The Hague ruled that Privacy First did not have a cause of action. Privacy First then appealed against this verdict.

Remarkably, the government meanwhile reviewed their amendments to the new Passport Act. The government concluded that the storage of these personal data in a central register did not achieve its purpose, namely passport fraud control via one’s identity verification. Therefore, the Act’s provisions that related to the storage of personal data in a central register would be suspended. Furthermore, the number of fingerprints to be taken for the filing would be reduced from four to two in accordance with European regulation.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal ruled that since Privacy First and the government now share the same views about the central register, Privacy First would have lost its standing in their cause of actions, so it dismissed the interest group’s claims. However, the Court of Appeal found that the district court had erred when it held that Privacy First did not have a cause of action at the time. Since Privacy First is an interest group advocating the protection of the general interest of
Dutch nationals’ right to privacy, it should have been able to bring proceedings before the civil court according to Article 3:305 of the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek). This would only have been different if the interest group had represented the combined interest of individuals. The Court of Appeal further ruled that Privacy First incurred a financial risk.

The Court of Appeal also ruled that in view of all the circumstances of the case at first instance, the district court should have ruled in favour of Privacy First concerning their arguments against the setting up of a central register. This central register’s storage of Dutch citizens’ personal data is an unjustified violation of one’s right to privacy enshrined in Article 8 ECHR because it did not fulfill its purpose. The Court of Appeal understands that this was a violation from the start, but this had only become evident after the first ruling.

[Source: Court of Appeal The Hague, 18 February 2014, ECLI:NLGHDHA:2014:412]

 

Click here to see a printable version of this article

All rights reserved. Care has been taken to ensure that the content of this e-bulletin is as accurate as possible. However the accuracy and completeness of the information in this e-bulletin, largely based upon third party sources, cannot be guaranteed. The materials contained in this e-bulletin have been prepared and provided by Stibbe for information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice and readers should not act upon the information contained in this e-bulletin without consulting legal counsel. Consultation of this e-bulletin will not create an attorney-client relationship between Stibbe and the reader. The e-bulletin may be used only for personal use and all other uses are prohibited.

Team

Related news

10.10.2018 NL law
Ongevraagd advies Raad van State: normering van geautomatiseerde overheidsbesluitvorming

Short Reads - Op 31 augustus 2018 heeft de Afdeling advisering van de Raad van State (hierna: "Afdeling advisering") een 'Ongevraagd advies over de effecten van de digitalisering voor de rechtsstatelijke verhoudingen' betreffende de positie en de bescherming van de burger tegen een "iOverheid" uitgebracht. Het gebeurt niet vaak dat de Afdeling advisering zo een ongevraagd advies uitbrengt. Dit onderstreept het belang van de voortdurend in ontwikkeling zijnde technologie en digitalisering in relatie tot de verhouding tussen de overheid en de maatschappij.

Read more

12.10.2018 NL law
Tim Berners-Lee's Solid proposal: the future of data traffic?

Short Reads - The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) aims to strengthen the rights of individuals in respect of their personal data. Although this aim has been achieved to a certain extent, the fundamental framework of the way personal data is processed remains unchanged. Companies are still able to use large amounts of user data, in many cases without even obtaining their consent. Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, has announced his plans for a decentralised web, in which users remain in control of their personal data.

Read more

09.10.2018 BE law
Stibbe continues to support law incubator project IusStart in new academic year

Inside Stibbe - Stibbe, in cooperation with IusStart (KU Leuven), has supported promising start-ups for many years now by drawing their attention to potential legal obstacles in the field of general commercial law and IP and IT law. This new academic year is no exception: our TMT department continues to assist final-year law students and start-ups by being their mentors.

Read more

11.10.2018 NL law
Stibbe hosts NGB Extra Seminar about product development and counsel’s role at the interface of new technology and law

Seminar - On 11 October 2018, Stibbe will host the NGB (Dutch Association of Corporate Lawyers) Extra Seminar.  IT/IP lawyers Judica Krikke, Jasper Klopper, Marc Spuijbroek and Frederiek Fernhout will discuss the practical aspects of the development of innovative new products. 

Read more

26.09.2018 EU law
Artikel 13 DSM-richtlijn: verplichting tot een online content filter?

Short Reads - In het kader van de modernisering van het auteursrecht binnen de Europese Unie heeft het Europese Parlement op woensdag 12 september 2018 gestemd over het voorstel voor een Richtlijn van het Europees Parlement en de Raad inzake auteursrechten in de 'digitale eengemaakte markt' (ofwel de Digital Single Market, afgekort de 'DSM-richtlijn'). Met name artikel 13 van de DSM-richtlijn – de zogenaamde 'content filter'- wordt ontvangen met veel kritiek. In deze blog wordt kort ingegaan op de betekenis en de mogelijke gevolgen van artikel 13.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring