Does the mention of a municipality constitute a violation of a DPA injunction to delete an address?

When the Data Protection Authority (DPA) orders you to delete address details, it is generally sufficient to remove the specific street name and house number. The mere fact that a municipality or a general location remains visible on a map does not automatically mean that you are ignoring an injunction to delete data. This was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in a ruling of 26 November 2025, in which a sanction against a real estate agency was overturned in its entirety.

The facts: discussion about a sold property

The case originated with a real estate agency that, after selling a property in 2022, continued to publish photos, the address, and the cadastral data of the property on its website and Facebook page. The buyer of the property objected to this and exercised his right to have the data deleted.

In an initial decision (No. 172/2022), the DPA Litigation Chamber ordered the firm to delete the “postal address details” and cadastral numbers from the website. The firm complied by removing the street and house number, but left the municipality and a general Google Maps map (without exact pinpoint) in place. However, on 24 April 2025 (No. 80/2025) the DPA ruled that this was insufficient and imposed an administrative fine of €6,000 for failure to comply with the earlier injunction.

The decision: strict interpretation of the order

The Market Court completely overturned the fine imposed by the DPA. The core of the legal reasoning is as follows:

1. Definition of ‘postal address’: According to the usual meaning (as in the Larousse dictionary), an address consists of three parts: a street, number, and municipality. By removing the street and number, the firm had effectively deleted the “postal address details”.
2. Scope of the decision: The original injunction from the DPA explicitly referred to the firm's website. The Market Court ruled that the firm could not be sanctioned for failing to remove data from Facebook (in a timely manner), as this channel was not mentioned in the original disposition part of the decision.
3. Google Maps as an illustration: The reference to Google Maps in the injunction was interpreted by the court as an example of a channel. As long as the map no longer allowed for the exact identification of the property (due to the absence of a street name and number), retaining the map module did not constitute a violation of the injunction.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling highlights a crucial legal principle: the principle of legality and legal certainty. When an administrative authority such as the DPA imposes an order subject to a penalty, that order must be crystal clear.

The Court of Appeal rules that a defendant cannot be punished for an “extensive interpretation” of his own decision. If the DPA wanted the municipality to be removed as well, or for all social media channels to be cleaned up, it should have explicitly included this in the disposition part of its first decision..

Furthermore, the court recalls that the procedure before the Market Court is a review of the implementation of a specific decision, and not a general re-examination of compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Even if a residual piece of data (such as a small municipality) could theoretically still be considered “personal data” under the GDPR, this does not automatically mean that a specific order to delete a “postal address” has been violated.

What this specifically means

The ruling has important implications for both companies and data subjects:

• For entrepreneurs and real estate agencies: If you receive an order from the DPA, analyze very carefully what exactly is stated in the “disposition part” (the dictum). You are only bound by what is strictly formulated there. Document your actions (such as screenshots of the changes) immediately.
• For the citizen (the complainant): If you want your data to disappear everywhere, you must ensure that the complaint and the requested measures explicitly mention all relevant platforms (website, Facebook, Instagram, portal sites).
• For legal practice: This ruling forces the DPA to be more precise in its decision-making. Unclear wording will work in the defendant's favor.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Is a Google Maps map on a website always a violation of data protection law?
No. It depends on the level of precision. If the map only indicates a broad area or municipality without pinpointing the exact location of the property, and the corresponding street name and house number have been removed, this is often no longer considered an identifiable postal address.

Can the DPA fine me for information on Facebook if the order only refers to my website?
According to this ruling by the Market Court, this is not possible. A sanction can only be imposed for non-compliance with the specific channels included in the binding part of the earlier decision.

What should I do if I receive a fine from the DPA?
You can lodge an appeal with the Marktenhof (the Court of Appeal in Brussels) within 30 days. As this case shows, it is essential to check whether the DPA has interpreted its own powers too broadly.

Conclusion

This ruling underscores that the battle against administrative fines imposed by the Data Protection Authority is often won on the basis of a strict legal analysis of the injunctions imposed. The interpretation of what exactly constitutes “data” and where it must be deleted is a matter for specialists.