This post is also available in:
A demanding client. Mr “Borné” (a fictitious name; the key point is the accented “é” at the end) was a client of Bank X. In the bank’s database, his name was recorded in capitals only, spelled “BORNE”, as it was on his cheques, transfer forms and bank cards. The bank’s IT system, built in the 1990s, did not allow accents to be taken into account, client names always being shown in capitals. The client considered that the bank had to record him, even in capitals, as “BORNÉ”, rather than with a plain “e”. Accommodating the accent and modifying the bank’s systems represented, for the bank, an extremely significant IT cost and effort, out of all proportion to the client’s inconvenience.
The Data Protection Authority orders the bank to rectify the data
The Data Protection Authority ordered the bank to do what was necessary to rectify the client’s data, whatever the cost, and to publish a copy of the decision on the bank’s website. The ground: the right to rectification of personal data, Article 16 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), is absolute.
The Market Court confirms
The Market Court, a specialised chamber of the Brussels Court of Appeal, hears appeals against decisions of the Data Protection Authority. On 9 October 2019, it confirmed the Authority’s position. It held that the right to rectification of one’s personal data, which may be exercised at any time, cannot be assessed in light of whether or not the data subject has suffered harm. Nor can the reasonableness of a rectification request, and thus any abuse of rights, be assessed. Refusing to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union, the court held that claiming that updating a computer program would take months or entail an additional cost does not allow a bank to disregard the data subject’s rights. For the court, compliance with these rights amounts to an obligation of result on the data controller. The bank appealed to the Court of Cassation.
This article is an extract from our “Banking Case Law Barometer, 2019”, published in the D.A.O.R. review.
This article is a translation. Only the French version is authoritative. It is provided for information purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
Leave a Reply