THE BOTTOM LINE
- Inspection Reports Are Public Domain: Government inspection reports, including your company’s name and address, can be made public under the Dutch Freedom of Information Act (Wet open overheid or “Woo”).
- High Bar for Safety Risks: A general fear of negative attention or activism is not enough to block disclosure. Businesses must prove a concrete, specific, and current threat to their operations or personnel.
- Business Identity Is Not Personal Privacy: Using a family name for your company or a home address as your business location does not automatically shield that information from public release. Courts consider this a commercial choice, where the public’s right to transparency typically prevails.
THE DETAILS
This case began when the animal rights organization, Animal Rights, filed a Freedom of Information request for all government inspection reports concerning rabbit farms over a two-year period. The Minister of Agriculture agreed to release the documents, including company-specific details. One of the farms objected and sought a temporary court injunction to prevent the publication of its information, arguing it would cause irreparable harm. The District Court of Gelderland was tasked with deciding whether to halt the release while the farm’s formal objection is processed.
The farm’s primary argument rested on privacy and safety. They contended that releasing their company name—which is also the owner’s family name—and address would violate their right to personal privacy under the GDPR and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court, however, dismissed this argument, citing established case law. It ruled that the public’s interest in understanding how a government agency (in this case, the food safety authority NVWA) performs its supervisory duties is a cornerstone of a democratic society. This public interest in transparency outweighs a company’s privacy concerns, even when business and personal details overlap. The court confirmed that the Woo provides a sufficient legal basis for such disclosures, satisfying GDPR and ECHR requirements.
Furthermore, the company argued that publication would expose them to significant safety risks, including sabotage and harassment from activists. They pointed to general examples of animal activism and a past incident allegedly involving unauthorized filming on their property. The court found this insufficient. To block disclosure on safety grounds, a business must demonstrate a concrete, current, and verifiable threat directed specifically at them. A general fear or a single, isolated incident from several years prior does not meet this high legal standard. As the court found the farm’s objections had no reasonable chance of success, it denied the injunction, allowing the publication to proceed.
SOURCE
Source: Rechtbank Gelderland
