Articles

Court of Appeal rejects the Belgian courts’ jurisdictional competence regarding Facebook Inc. and Facebook Ireland

Court of Appeal rejects the Belgian courts’ jurisdictional competence regarding Facebook Inc. and Facebook Ireland

Court of Appeal rejects the Belgian courts’ jurisdictional competence regarding Facebook Inc. and Facebook Ireland

13.10.2016

On 29 June 2016 the Court of Appeal of Brussels rejected the suit filed by the Belgian Privacy Commission against Facebook Inc., Facebook Ireland and Facebook Belgium. Its decision therefore reforms the earlier decision rendered on 9 November 2015 by the president of the Court of First Instance hearing the case seeking interim measures, which Facebook appealed against.

The president of the Court of First Instance condemned Facebook’s practice of collecting and registering personal data of millions of internet users on the Belgian territory who did not sign up to the social network site as a “manifest violation of privacy law”. Facebook did this by making use of the datr-cookie, which is automatically installed on browsers of non-Facebook members whenever they visit a Facebook. com webpage, and by using social plug-ins on third-party websites to communicate the information contained in the datr-cookie to Facebook. Consequently, the court ordered Facebook (i.e., Facebook Inc., Facebook Belgium and Facebook Ireland) to immediately cease registering the surfing behavior of these non-Facebook users and imposed a penalty of EUR 250,000 per day of non-compliance. On appeal the Court of Appeal concluded that Belgian courts lack the international jurisdictional competence to rule on the dispute against Facebook Ireland, where all data from Europe are being processed, and against Facebook Inc., the US-based parent company. According to the Court of Appeal, there are no applicable legal grounds that grant the Belgian courts such international jurisdiction. Firstly, the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC does not have direct effect in the Belgian legal order and furthermore does not cover the aspect of international jurisdiction. Secondly, the Belgian Privacy Act only covers the competence of the supervisory data protection authority and not of the Belgian courts. Thirdly, the upcoming Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 will only enter into force by 2018. Finally, both Regulation 1215/2012 and the Belgian Code of International Private Law do not apply as the case does not concern “civil or commercial matters” because of the involvement of the Belgian Privacy Commission. In short, according to the Court of Appeal there is no legal ground in Belgian, European or international law which allows the Belgian Privacy Commission in this case to bring a claim concerning privacy violations on the Belgian territory before the Belgian courts. The Court of Appeal however does not elaborate on which courts do have international jurisdiction.

With respect to Facebook Belgium, which is a legal entity established in Belgium, the Court of Appeal states that the Belgian courts have jurisdiction effectively. However, the Court declares the initial lawsuit that the Belgian Privacy Commission brought in interim proceedings unfounded because an interim decision in summary proceedings can only be rendered if the measures being sought are found to be urgent. The Court found this condition of urgency not fulfilled, mainly because the challenged practice of Facebook already dates back from 2011-2012, and Facebook had recently adapted its cookie policy by changing its cookie banner.

The merits of the case still have to be decided upon, which will only take place in September 2017.

 

Team

Related news

22.07.2021 NL law
Towards a European legal framework for the development and use of Artificial Intelligence

Short Reads - Back in 2014, Stephen Hawking said, “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.” Although the use of artificial intelligence is nothing new and dates back to Alan Turing (the godfather of computational theory), prominent researchers – along with Stephen Hawking – have expressed their concerns about the unregulated use of AI systems and their impact on society as we know it.

Read more

18.06.2021 NL law
FAQ: Wat houdt het Wetsvoorstel elektronische gegevensuitwisseling in de zorg (Wegiz) in en wat is de verhouding tot de AVG?

Short Reads - (Digitale) gegevensuitwisseling in de zorg is een actueel thema. Illustratief is een item bij EenVandaag van april 2021 waarin de analoge werkwijze bij gegevensuitwisseling in de zorg wordt aangekaart, maar ook dit artikel in het NRC van afgelopen maand waarin verslag werd gedaan van een datalek waardoor duizenden gevoelige patiëntgegevens op straat kwamen te liggen. 

Read more

19.07.2021 BE law
One year of Schrems II: a state of affairs for international data transfers

Articles - International data transfers have been the subject of intense debates ever since the Court of Justice issued its landmark judgement of Schrems I, on 6 October 2015. The intensity of the debate was further reinforced since the Schrems II decision one year ago, on 16 July 2020. The decision annulled the U.S. Privacy Shield and severely tightened the rules on the use of standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”).

Read more

18.05.2021 NL law
Kroniek: De bestuursrechtelijke aspecten van de AVG

Articles - Tom Barkhuysen, Steven Bastiaans en Fatma Çapkurt (Universiteit Leiden) schreven samen de eerste editie van de nieuwe jaarlijkse NTB kroniek: de bestuursrechtelijke aspecten van de AVG. Hierin bespreken zij onder meer de meest relevante (bestuursrechtelijke) jurisprudentie van het afgelopen jaar op het gebied van de AVG.

Read more