Do you have to pay a fine imposed by the DPA immediately, even if you are appealing?

A heavy fine from the Data Protection Authority (DPA) can be a severe blow, especially if your organization is already struggling financially. You can appeal to the Market Court, but does that appeal suspend payment? The short answer is: no, not in principle. A ruling of the Markets Court of 19 February 2025 confirms that financial hardship alone is not sufficient to suspend immediate payment of a DPA fine.

The facts and legal context

The case involved a hospital that, after being victimized twice by a cyber attack with ransom demands , underwent an investigation by the DPA. The DPA's Litigation Chamber identified several breaches of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (including on articles 5, 24, 32 and 35). In its decision of 17 December 2024, the DPA imposed an administrative fine of 200,000 euros on the hospital.

The hospital disagreed with this sanction and appealed to the Market Court asking that the decision be overturned. Crucially, while waiting for the final ruling, the hospital also asked for the suspension of enforcement of the fine.

The hospital's argument was clear: it was in a very precarious financial condition and the immediate payment of 200,000 euros would be at the expense of necessary expenses for patient care.

Market court decision

In its interlocutory ruling of 19 February 2025, the Market Court denied the demand for suspension of payment.

The Court first reiterated legal principles. A decision of the DPA is in principle "provisionally enforceable," even if appealed. The Market Court, however, can suspend that execution. To obtain this, the requesting party must prove two cumulative conditions:

1. There must be serious arguments ("serious pleas") that can prima facie justify overturning the decision.
2. The immediate implementation of the decision must threaten to cause a "serious and difficult to recover harm."

The Markets Court focused exclusively on that second condition in this case. It found that the hospital was indeed in a difficult financial situation, with losses and an ongoing restructuring plan.

However, that was not enough. The court noted that there were also positive prospects, such as a recovery plan, new loans and a possible merger. The crux of the reasoning was the following:

• The downside (the payment of 200,000 euros) is purely financial.
• In principle, a purely financial loss is always recoverable. If the hospital should later win the case on the merits, the amount can simply be refunded.
• The hospital had failed to prove that payment of the fine would jeopardize its continuity or threaten its viability.
• The mere claim that the payment would be at the expense of patient care was not supported by objective evidence (such as an auditor's statement).

Because the hospital could not prove the existence of a serious and difficult to recover prejudice, the second condition was not met. The Court did not even need to further consider the first condition (the seriousness of the arguments on the merits). Thus, the fine remains due immediately pending final appeal.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling is an important reminder of the enforceability of DPA decisions. The Act of 3 December 2017 establishing the Data Protection Authority states in Article 108 §1 that decisions of the Litigation Chamber are enforceable notwithstanding any appeal.

An appeal to the Market Court therefore does not automatically have suspensive effect. The ability of the Market Court to suspend an appeal stems from the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Judicial Code (interim measures) and the right to an effective remedy (enshrined in Art. 78 GDPR and Art. 47 of the EU Charter).

However, the threshold for the "serious and difficult to recover harm." is very high. This ruling applies a "continuity test": the disadvantage is only "difficult to recover" if it threatens the viability of the organization itself. The mere fact that a payment is inconvenient or strains budgets is insufficient. The applicant must objectively demonstrate that the payment will result in bankruptcy, the cessation of essential operations or some other irreversible consequence. Here, the fact that the hospital's own budget projections for 2024 showed a positive outcome worked to their disadvantage.

What this specifically means

• For organizations facing DPA fines: Do not assume that an appeal will pause payment. Budget the fine as an immediately payable debt. If you do want to request the suspension of payment, a general story of financial difficulties will not suffice. You will need to demonstrate with hard, objective figures (preferably from a company auditor or accountant) that the immediate payment acutely threatens your continuity.
• For the DPA: This ruling strengthens the enforceability of its penalties. It confirms that provisional enforcement is the rule and suspension the exception, increasing the deterrent effect of fines.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does an appeal to the Market Court automatically suspend payment of a DPA fine?
No. Decisions of the DPA are in principle immediately enforceable, even if you appeal. You must submit a separate and reasoned request for suspension to the Market Court.

What do I need to prove to have the payment of a DPA fine suspended?
You must prove two cumulative conditions: (1) that you have serious arguments that the fine is unjustified (a prima facie assessment), and (2) that immediate payment would cause you a "serious and difficult to recover harm."

Is the fact that my organization is financially loss-making enough for a suspension?
No, not in and of itself. As this ruling shows, a precarious financial condition is not the same as a serious and difficult to recover harm. If the harm is purely financial, it is deemed "reparable" (the penalty will be refunded if you win the case on the merits). You must show that the payment threatens the continuity of your organization.

Conclusion

Challenging in Belgium a decision of the Data Protection Authority is a complex procedure. This Market Court ruling emphasizes that the default rule is immediate payment. Obtaining a suspension of that payment is an exception for which there is a heavy burden of proof; merely showing that it is "financially difficult" is not enough.