On 4 October 2024, the Supreme Court ruled on an issue involving the right to access personal data under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The case involved an employee of the North Holland District Court, with whom an employment dispute had arisen. The court had asked the Council for the Judiciary for advice on the labour dispute, which was obtained. After the employee’s employment was terminated by means of a settlement agreement, the employee requested access to her personal data on the basis of the GDPR with which she intended to obtain the advice of the Council for the Judiciary. This issue was litigated up to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled that the employer may refuse the request to access advice to third parties regarding the labour dispute. The Supreme Court reasoned that under Article 41 of the General Data Protection Regulation (Implementation) Act, a consideration of the various interests involved is required. In this case it concerns a balancing of the right to access personal data on the one hand (Article 15 AVG) and the rights or freedoms of others on the other hand (Article 23 (1) and under i AVG). As far as possible, the choice should be made to provide the personal data in a way that does not infringe on those rights or freedoms of others. The rights or freedoms of others includes, inter alia, the right to be advised in order to determine one’s position in a dispute and in preparation for defending against or bringing an action or application as laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
In cassation, the opinion of the court of appeals that “others” included the data processor itself stood because this remained uncontested. The Supreme Court considered the court of appeal’s opinion that the court management of the District Court of North Holland was entitled to reject the request to access personal data because the rejection was necessary and proportionate with a view to protecting the court’s interest in determining its position in the labour dispute with the employee in freedom and seclusion and preparing the defense against or instituting a legal action or request did not testify to an incorrect view of the law, nor was it incomprehensible.
