THE BOTTOM LINE:
- Litigation Stability: This ruling confirms that opponents cannot use the GDPR’s right to rectification to force you to change allegations or arguments made in court documents. Your legal strategy and historical filings are protected from this type of collateral attack.
- Preservation of the Record: Court submissions and criminal complaints are treated as a historical record of what was alleged at a specific time. The proper forum to dispute these claims is within the original legal proceedings, not through a separate GDPR action.
- Context is Key: The “correctness” of personal data under the GDPR is judged based on its purpose. For legal filings, the purpose is to state a claim or defense. Therefore, the data accurately reflects the allegation being made, even if the underlying facts are disputed.
THE DETAILS:
This case involved an individual previously found liable in a civil case for damages related to fraudulent invoices and convicted in a parallel criminal case. He filed a new action under Article 16 of the GDPR (the right to rectification), demanding that the company, Divosa, correct the “inaccurate” personal data about him contained in its original court filings and criminal complaint. He argued that the company’s statements—such as alleging he created “false invoices”—were factually incorrect and should be formally rectified.
The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal rejected the request, providing crucial clarity on the limits of GDPR rights within the legal system. The court’s reasoning hinged on the purpose of the data processing. It held that when a company processes personal data by including it in a legal submission (like a statement of claim or a criminal complaint), the purpose is to articulate its legal position or to report a suspected crime. The court filing is, therefore, an accurate record of what the company alleged. Whether that allegation is ultimately proven true is a separate matter to be decided by the judge in that specific case, not in a subsequent GDPR procedure.
In its decision, the court effectively balanced the right to data protection under the GDPR against the fundamental right to a fair trial and an effective legal remedy, as enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Allowing a party to use Article 16 to retroactively edit an opponent’s legal arguments would fundamentally undermine the legal process, creating an end-run around established procedures for evidence, appeals, and the finality of judgments. The court affirmed that the proper place to challenge the truthfulness of allegations is within the original litigation itself, where principles like the equality of arms are protected.
SOURCE:
Source: Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden
