Joris DeeneMany data protection complaints do not arise in a vacuum; they are often intertwined with an underlying dispute with an employer, an ex-partner or, as in a recent case, a colleague. The question is: Should the Data Protection Authority (DPA) investigate every complaint, or may it dismiss a complaint if the root of the problem appears to be a private dispute?
The answer is clear: yes, the DPA can and may dismiss a complaint if it is secondary to a broader dispute. In a ruling of 15 October 2025, the Brussels Markets Court upheld this discretionary power of the DPA. The DPA is not required to devote significant resources to a complaint that better belongs in a civil or criminal court.
The facts of the case
The case began with what the complainant himself described as a “private dispute” with a colleague at the FPS Finance. This colleague would be the new partner of the complainant's ex-partner.
After receiving an anonymous letter containing personal data, the complainant suspected that this colleague had abused his position to illegally access his personal data in the databases of the FPS Finance.
The complainant filed an internal complaint with the FPS Finance Inspection Service. However, after a “thorough investigation,” the internal service claimed to have found “no elements that could confirm the allegations.” Although the complainant interpreted an e-mail from the service differently, the FPS Finance repeated several times that no trace of an illegal consultation had been found.
The complainant then went to the Federal Ombudsman and contacted (through his legal aid insurance) the Data Protection Officer (DPO) of the FPS. He finally filed a formal complaint with the DPA against the FPS Finance on April 4, 2024.
The decision: DPA dismisses, Markets Court affirms
The Litigation Chamber of the DPA decided to dismiss the complaint in a decision dated March 24, 2025 (No. 60/2025). It based this on two grounds from her own dismissal policy:
- Motif B.3: The complaint is subordinate (accessory) to a broader dispute that would be better brought before another court or competent authority.
- Motif B.5: There is insufficient evidence of a violation and the complaint does not have a high social or personal impact.
The complainant disagreed and went to the Markets Court to have the DPA's dismissal decision set aside. However, the Markets Court ruled that the appeal, while admissible, was unfounded. Thus, the DPA's decision stood.
Legal analysis and interpretation
This ruling is an important confirmation of the operation of the DPA and its review by the Markets Court.
1. The discretionary power of the DPA.
The DPA, like other control authorities in Europe, has discretion to decide how to handle a complaint. The law states that it handles complaints “to the extent necessary”. This means that the DPA may make an opportunity assesment and decide not to investigate a complaint on the merits, provided it provides proper justification.
2. Marginal review by the Markets Court.
The Markets Court emphasizes that it is conducting a marginal review. The Court does not itself reexamine the complaint or substitute its own judgment for that of the DPA. The Court is merely verifying that the DPA:
- Relyed on accurate facts;
- Correctly evaluated the facts;
- And on that basis could reach her decision within reason.
3. Analysis of grounds for dismissal
The Court found that the two motives (B.3 and B.5) could each separately justify dismissal.
Regarding Ground B.3 (private dispute): The Court noted that the DPA did not commit a factual error by referring to a private dispute; the plaintiff himself had raised it that way in his complaint. The Court confirmed that the dispute (a possible tort or even a criminal offense) could perfectly be brought before a civil court or through a criminal complaint. These bodies are better positioned to evaluate the entire dispute, including hearing witnesses and requiring documentary evidence. Thus, the DPA could reasonably judge that its intervention was not “strictly necessary.”.
Regarding Ground B.5 (lack of evidence): Although the analysis of the first motive was sufficient to dismiss the appeal, the Court also addressed the second motive “for the sake of completeness”. The Court was sharp for the plaintiff here:
- The plaintiff based his entire reasoning on the faulty premise that the FPS Finance had admitted the consultation. The Court read the e-mail in question and concluded that the opposite was true: the FPS had just not confirmed the allegations.
- More so, the Court noted that the complainant had not submitted crucial supporting documents to the DPA: neither his original complaint, nor the DPO's response, and most importantly: the anonymous letter itself.
Without these elements, the DPA could not possibly determine the seriousness or even the existence of the breach. The DPA correctly ruled that an in-depth investigation would require “significant resources” (e.g., calling in the Inspection Service), which was disproportionate given the lack of evidence and the context of the private dispute.
What this specifically means
- For complainants (citizens): A DPA complaint is not a tool for resolving a private dispute. If your complaint is intertwined with a divorce, a neighbor dispute or an employment dispute, be aware that the DPA may refer you to the appropriate court. In addition, make sure your file is complete. Failure to submit crucial evidence, such as the anonymous letter in this case, could be fatal to your complaint.
- For companies (data controllers): This case demonstrates the importance of a robust internal complaints procedure and prompt follow-up by the DPO and internal inspection services. The FPS Finance had investigated the case internally and clearly communicated that no breach had been identified. This proactive stance may have saved the organization from a more thorough investigation by the DPA.
- For the DPA: This ruling is supportive of its dismissal policy. It confirms that the Litigation Chamber has the right to filter complaints and focus its resources on cases with greater impact or where its intervention provides real added value.
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
What does “dismissal for reasons of expediency” mean?
This means that the DPA decides not to investigate a complaint further, not necessarily because the complaint is unjustified, but because it is not “expedient” or appropriate at that time. Reasons may include too low an impact, lack of evidence, or, as here, the fact that another body (such as a court) is better placed to handle the dispute.
Should I now go to court first instead of the DPA?
Not necessary. The DPA and the courts have different roles. The DPA enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and can impose e.g. fines or a processingprohibition. A civil court has jurisdiction for damages. You can pursue either procedure, but this ruling shows that if the dispute is overwhelmingly a private feud, the DPA may decide to await the outcome of the civil or criminal proceedings, or simply dismiss the complaint.
What if I don't have all the evidence?
The DPA is not a proactive investigative agency that will look for evidence on your behalf. While its Inspectorate may investigate, the Litigation Chamber will not readily order it to do so if the complaint itself is paper-thin. As the Court pointed out, a complainant must substantiate his allegations. Without the anonymous letter, the DPA could not assess the impact and it was reasonable to dismiss the complaint for lack of evidence.
Conclusion
This Markets Court ruling highlights that the DPA may strategically filter complaints. A complaint that arises primarily from a private dispute and, moreover, is insufficiently supported by evidence, runs a real risk of being dismissed. It shows that the DPA may use its resources efficiently and need not act as an arbitrator in personal feuds in Belgium.
Dutch 
English