{"id":103472,"date":"2026-09-10T18:33:27","date_gmt":"2026-09-10T17:33:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?p=103472"},"modified":"2026-09-13T17:12:30","modified_gmt":"2026-09-13T16:12:30","slug":"gdpr-fine-subsidized-school-advocate-general","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\/","title":{"rendered":"Can Belgium exempt subsidized independent schools from GDPR fines?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">According to the <a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/NL\/TXT\/?uri=CELEX:62025CC0458\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Opinion of Advocate General Campos S\u00e1nchez-Bordona dated September 10, 2026<\/a> in Case C-458\/25, Belgium may not exempt a private school that provides subsidized free education from administrative fines under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The term \u201cpublic authorities and bodies\u201d in Article 83(7) of the GDPR is a concept under EU law that covers only entities exercising public authority. The case centers on a survey regarding the well-being of students conducted by a school group in the Kempen region via Smartschool, and on the question of whether the Data Protection Authority (DPA) was entitled to impose a fine of 1,000 euros for this. The Court of Justice has yet to rule on the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In short:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Advocate General recommends that the Court of Justice rule that Article 83(7) of the GDPR precludes a national provision that prohibits the supervisory authority from imposing a fine on private-law legal entities that provide subsidized private education.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>According to him, the decisive factor is whether an entity exercises public authority; merely performing a task in the public interest and receiving subsidies is not sufficient, even if those subsidies account for more than half of its funding.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If the Court follows this advice, the Belgian exemption provided for in Article 221, \u00a7 2 of the Data Protection Act will be in jeopardy for hundreds of subsidized nonprofit organizations, and not just in the education sector.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-de-feiten\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">The facts<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On July 22, 2019, the father of a student filed a complaint with the DPA against a secondary school operated by the Onderwijsgroep Zusters der Christelijke Scholen Zuid-Kempen vzw. The school had conducted a survey on student well-being via the Smartschool digital platform. The parents had not been informed in advance, their consent had not been sought, the survey was not anonymous, and no data protection impact assessment had been conducted. We previously discussed the full background of this case in our blog post addressing the question of whether <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/can-a-school-be-fined-for-violating-gdpr\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">a school can be fined for violating the GDPR<\/a>. A brief recap will suffice here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On June 16, 2020, the DPA\u2019s Litigation Chamber found four violations of the GDPR and imposed a fine of 2,000 euros (<a href=\"https:\/\/gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be\/publications\/beslissing-ten-gronde-nr.-31-2020.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">DPA June 16, 2020<\/a>, decision on the merits No. 31\/2020). The Marktet Court found that the decision did not provide sufficient reasoning regarding the exemption for public authorities and remanded the section on fines (<a href=\"https:\/\/gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be\/publications\/arrest-van-18-november-2020-van-het-marktenhof-ar-990.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Market Court, November 18, 2020<\/a>, 2020\/AR\/990). The DPA reconsidered its decision and reduced the fine to 1,000 euros (<a href=\"https:\/\/gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be\/publications\/beslissing-ten-gronde-nr.-36-2021.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">DPA March 15, 2021<\/a>, decision on the merits No. 36\/2021). The Market Court overturned that fine (<a href=\"https:\/\/gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be\/publications\/arrest-van-6-oktober-2021-van-het-marktenhof-ar-576.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Market Court, October 6, 2021<\/a>, 2021\/AR\/576), the Court of Cassation overturned that ruling (<a href=\"https:\/\/gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be\/publications\/arrest-van-9-januari-2023-van-het-hof-van-cassatie.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Court of Cassation, January 9, 2023<\/a>, C.22.0162.N), and a differently composed Market Court once again overturned the fine (<a href=\"https:\/\/gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be\/publications\/arrest-van-27-februari-2024-van-het-marktenhof-ar-1186.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Market Court, February 27, 2024<\/a>, 2023\/AR\/1186).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In a second appeal to the Court of Cassation, the Court of Cassation referred a question for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice on June 27, 2025 (<a href=\"https:\/\/juportal.be\/content\/ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20250627.1N.9\/NL\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Court of Cassation, June 27, 2025<\/a>, C.24.0186.N). In short, the question is whether Article 83, paragraph 7 <a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/eli\/reg\/2016\/679\/oj\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)<\/a> opposes a national regulation under which the regulatory authority cannot impose administrative fines on private-law legal entities that provide subsidized private education. Six years after the complaint was filed, the case is now before the court in Luxembourg, with 1,000 euros at stake and a principle that extends far beyond a single school.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-de-conclusie-van-de-advocaat-generaal\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Advocate General's opinion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">An opinion by the Advocate General is an independent legal opinion submitted to the Court of Justice; while it is not binding on the Court, the Court generally follows it in most cases. The Advocate General answers the question in three steps: who determines what constitutes a public authority, what that concept entails, and whether a subsidized independent school falls under that definition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 id=\"h-het-begrip-overheidsinstantie-is-een-autonoom-unierechtelijk-begrip\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">The concept of a public authority is an autonomous concept under Union law<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Article 83(7) of the GDPR allows each Member State to establish rules \u201cwhether and to what extent administrative fines may be imposed on public authorities and bodies established in that Member State.\u201d The Regulation does not define these two terms anywhere. Belgium and the school group concluded from this that each Member State may determine for itself who constitutes a public authority. The DPA and the European Commission argued that this is an autonomous concept that must be interpreted uniformly throughout the Union.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Advocate General opts for the second option. An autonomous concept under Union law is one that the Court of Justice interprets itself, independently of its meaning under the law of a Member State. He provides six reasons for this. Article 83(7) does not refer to national law. The Member State\u2019s margin of discretion relates solely to whether and to what extent fines will be imposed, not to the question of which public authority is responsible. The EU legislature deliberately harmonized the sanctions under the GDPR, whereas under the earlier Directive 95\/46 they were largely national in nature. The term appears in more than ten provisions of the GDPR. The Court has also interpreted other key concepts of the GDPR, such as the concept of damage in Article 82, autonomously. And according to the <a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/NL\/TXT\/?uri=CELEX:62021CJ0683\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Nacionalinis visuomen\u0117s sveikatos centras ruling<\/a> (ECJ, December 5, 2023, C-683\/21) Member States may not determine the substantive conditions for imposing fines on their own.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Advocate General adds a practical argument. If each Member State were to define the concept on its own, a mere expression of intent by the national legislature would suffice to exempt entities from the fines, even when their nature has nothing to do with the reason for the exception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 id=\"h-een-overheidsinstantie-oefent-bevoegdheden-van-openbaar-gezag-uit\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">A government agency exercises powers of public authority<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">What, then, does the term mean? The Advocate General interprets Article 83(7) in conjunction with Recitals 10, 31, and 45 of the GDPR. Those recitals distinguish between \u201cthe performance of a task carried out in the public interest\u201d and \u201cthe exercise of official authority.\u201d According to Recital 45, a task in the public interest may also be entrusted to a private-law entity, such as a professional association. The exercise of public authority is reserved for government agencies and other entities governed by public law. From this, he concludes that the term in Article 83(7) covers only public-law bodies or agencies entrusted with the exercise of public authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">He compares that interpretation with other areas of EU law and finds that the term has widely varying meanings in those contexts. In public procurement law, the definition of \u201cpublic-law entity\u201d in <a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/eli\/dir\/2014\/24\/oj\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Directive 2014\/24\/EU<\/a> is broad in scope and also covers private-law associations that are funded by the government. In VAT law, the exclusion of public-law entities set forth in Article 13 of <a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/eli\/dir\/2006\/112\/oj\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Directive 2006\/112\/EC<\/a> is according to the <a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/NL\/TXT\/?uri=CELEX:62014CJ0174\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Sauda\u00e7or ruling<\/a> (ECJ, October 29, 2015, C-174\/14) indeed narrow, with an emphasis on the exercise of public authority. Because Article 83(7) constitutes an exception to the harmonized system of penalties, the Advocate General argues that it must be interpreted strictly, and thus more in line with the VAT interpretation than with the public procurement interpretation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">He rejects the Commission's proposal to draw on case law regarding the direct effect of directives, with the <a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/NL\/TXT\/?uri=CELEX:61989CJ0188\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Foster ruling<\/a> (ECJ, July 12, 1990, C-188\/89) as the best-known example. That case law serves to determine against whom a citizen may invoke a directive that has not been transposed, and that is a completely different question from who is exempt from a fine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 id=\"h-een-gesubsidieerde-vrije-school-oefent-geen-openbaar-gezag-uit\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">A subsidized independent school does not exercise public authority<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Advocate General applies this to the school group, subject to the Court of Cassation\u2019s assessment of the facts. The nonprofit organization is not part of the state in the broad sense and does not possess any special powers of public authority. The fact that the Flemish government supervises the learning outcomes does not distinguish it from non-subsidized private schools. The fact that it is authorized to award diplomas, in his view, indicates a task in the public interest, not public authority; the General Prosecutor\u2019s Office stated at the hearing that non-subsidized institutions also have that authority. He points out that the Court had already ruled in the <a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/NL\/TXT\/?uri=CELEX:61993CJ0473\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Commission v. Luxembourg ruling<\/a> (ECJ, July 2, 1996, C-473\/93) that teaching professions do not involve participation in the exercise of public authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The subsidies are also insufficient. During the hearing, there was mention of \u201cmore than 50 percent\u201d government funding, without specific figures, and the Belgian government acknowledged that the school also receives tuition, donations, and proceeds from sales, and is permitted to advertise. The school group invoked the <a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/NL\/TXT\/?uri=CELEX:62016CJ0074\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Escuelas P\u00edas ruling<\/a> (ECJ, June 27, 2017, C-74\/16), in which the Court characterized subsidized education as a non-economic activity for the purposes of state aid law. The Advocate General responds that it does not follow from that ruling that a private educational institution automatically becomes a public authority merely because it receives public funding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Finally, he weighs the purpose of the exception. The exemption protects public finances and the continuity of public services. In his view, these objectives do not require that the authority to impose fines be completely eliminated. Article 83(2) of the GDPR already requires the supervisory authority to tailor the fine to the circumstances, and the final fine of 1,000 euros in no way jeopardized the school\u2019s continuity. A complete exemption, on the other hand, would mean that, in the event of a violation of students\u2019 rights, the DPA could only issue a warning or reprimand. He therefore advises the Court to rule that Article 83(7) of the GDPR precludes a national regulation that does not allow the supervisory authority to impose a monetary fine on private-law legal entities that provide free education and receive government subsidies for that purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The special protection afforded to children, to which the Court of Cassation referred in its question, plays no role in the reasoning. An entity is a public authority by virtue of its nature, not by virtue of who the victim of its violation is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-juridische-analyse-en-duiding\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Legal analysis and interpretation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 id=\"h-waarom-de-belgische-definitie-van-overheid-nu-in-het-vizier-komt\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Why the Belgian definition of \u201cgovernment\u201d is now under scrutiny<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Belgian legislature has transposed Article 83(7) of the GDPR into Article 221, \u00a7 2 of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ejustice.just.fgov.be\/eli\/wet\/2018\/07\/30\/2018040581\/justel\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Act of July 30, 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data<\/a> (Data Protection Act): Article 83 of the GDPR does not apply to \u201cthe government,\u201d unless it involves a legal entity governed by public law that offers goods or services on a market. The definition of \u201cgovernment\u201d is set forth in Article 5 of the same Act. That definition is literally based on public procurement law: in addition to the State, the federal states, and legal entities under public law, it also includes entities, \u201cregardless of their form and nature,\u201d that are established to serve a public interest, have legal personality, and are primarily financed or controlled by the government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That is the crux of the problem. The Advocate General explicitly cites the definition of \u201cpublic procurement\u201d as an example of the broad interpretation that is not appropriate for Article 83(7). The Belgian legislature has thus chosen precisely the model that the Advocate General rejects. If the Court concurs, then not only is the application to a single school in violation of the GDPR, but the definition itself is, insofar as it classifies private-law legal entities without public authority powers as public authorities. Incidentally, the DPA had already interpreted it this way in its second decision of March 15, 2021: the school is indeed a public authority within the meaning of Article 5 of the Data Protection Act, but not a public body within the meaning of Article 83(7) of the GDPR.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In 2021, the Constitutional Court ruled that Article 221, \u00a7 2 is in accordance with the Belgian Constitution (<a href=\"https:\/\/nl.const-court.be\/ARR\/3\/2021\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Cc January 14, 2021<\/a>, No. 3\/2021). In that case, the Court accepted the legislature\u2019s objective\u2014the continuity of public services\u2014as legitimate, and referred to the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.dekamer.be\/kvvcr\/showpage.cfm?section=flwb&amp;language=nl&amp;cfm=\/site\/wwwcfm\/flwb\/flwbn.cfm?&amp;dossierID=3126&amp;legislat=54\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">parliamentary works<\/a> of the law. However, that ruling says nothing about compatibility with the GDPR itself, and the Advocate General specifically refutes the continuity argument: the proportionality test under Article 83(2) of the GDPR already protects continuity, without requiring the fine as an enforcement tool to be eliminated. He also does not accept that the exemption merely spares public finances as a sufficient reason, citing established case law that purely economic motives do not constitute a compelling reason of public interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 id=\"h-de-tegenstem-de-groep-29-en-het-marktenhof-zagen-dit-anders\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">The dissenting opinion: Group 29 and the Market Court saw it differently<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The school group was not alone in its presentation. Group 29, the predecessor of the European Data Protection Board, wrote in its <a href=\"https:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/newsroom\/article29\/items\/612048\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Guidelines on the Data Protection Officer<\/a> (WP 243 rev.01) that the GDPR does not define the term \u201cpublic authority\u201d or \u201cpublic body\u201d and that it \u201cmust be defined in national law.\u201d These guidelines have been endorsed by the European Committee and are applied by supervisory authorities throughout the Union. Furthermore, Recital 154 of the GDPR explicitly refers, with regard to the right of access to official documents, to the right of Member States to determine which bodies fall under this provision. On February 27, 2024, the Market Court ruled along the same lines: a subsidized independent school could be regarded, in practical terms, as a public body within the meaning of the GDPR, meaning that the Belgian exemption did not conflict with Union law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Advocate General weighs these arguments and sets them aside. The guidelines concern Article 37 of the GDPR, the mandatory appointment of a data protection officer, and a broad national interpretation of that obligation is harmless: more entities required to appoint a data protection officer means greater protection. With regard to Article 83(7), a broad interpretation has the opposite effect: more entities that escape fines means less protection. He limits Recital 154 to Article 86 of the GDPR. That is a defensible but not compelling interpretation. Anyone reading the text of the regulation will find no indication anywhere that the same concept in Article 37 is a matter of national law, whereas in Article 83 it is a matter of Union law. Ultimately, the Advocate General\u2019s strongest argument is not the text but the system: the <a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/NL\/TXT\/?uri=CELEX:62021CJ0807\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Deutsche Wohnen ruling<\/a> (Court of Justice, December 5, 2023, C-807\/21) describes fines as a key element of GDPR enforcement, and the Court of Justice interprets exceptions to a key element narrowly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">He also does not agree with the Marktet Court\u2019s functional interpretation. Anyone who applies the Foster criteria to the school will indeed find that it meets many of them: a mission in the public interest, under government supervision, with the authority to award diplomas. The Advocate General responds that those criteria were developed for a different issue and that a school has no authority whatsoever that extends beyond what applies between private individuals. Non-subsidized schools also award diplomas. That final factual argument\u2014which the DPA raised only at the hearing and which the school group was unable to refute in its absence\u2014carries more weight in the conclusion than the reader might think at first glance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 id=\"h-wat-nog-open-ligt-het-hof-de-belgische-wetgever-en-de-andere-sectoren\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">What remains to be resolved: the Court, the Belgian legislature, and the other sectors<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">An opinion is not a ruling. The Court often, but not always, follows its Advocate General, and the Belgian government and the school group have defended a contrary interpretation in their written submissions. The ruling is expected sometime in 2027; after that, the Court of Cassation must still rule on the case and, in the event of a split decision, refer it to a third Market Court for a ruling. A case that began with a complaint filed on July 22, 2019, will then have taken eight years to result in a fine of 1,000 euros.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">If the Court upholds this conclusion, the Belgian legislature will have work to do. Article 5 of the Data Protection Act would need to be rewritten so that only entities exercising public authority fall under the exemption. In the meantime, the DPA will have to interpret Article 221, \u00a7 2 in accordance with the GDPR and will therefore be able to impose fines on any legal entity governed by private law, regardless of the extent to which it is publicly funded. The Advocate General himself identifies the sectors where this will have the greatest impact: healthcare, education, and social services, because these sectors process large amounts of sensitive data and data pertaining to vulnerable individuals. In Belgium, this includes hospitals organized as non-profit associations (npos), residential care centers, general social welfare centers, facilities for people with disabilities, and cultural institutions that currently fall under the definition of Article 5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">What the opinion does not address is the question raised by the DPA in its initial appeal to the Court of Cassation: whether a subsidized school \u201coffers goods or services on a market\u201d within the meaning of Article 221, \u00a7 2 itself. According to the letter of the law, this Belgian exception applies only to legal entities governed by public law. The Advocate General completely disregards it, because his answer renders the question moot: anyone who is not a public authority within the meaning of the GDPR falls under Article 83 in any case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-wat-betekent-dit-concreet\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Specifically, what does this mean?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>For school boards and school districts.<\/strong> The 1,000-euro fine in this case is small, but the principle is significant. A school board can no longer count on the exemption under Article 221, \u00a7 2 of the Data Protection Act to hold up. This brings the classic points of concern from this case back into focus: a legal basis for every survey of students, parental consent when an information society service is offered to children under the age limit, anonymous surveys where the purpose permits it, and a data protection impact assessment before a new student tracking system or well-being platform is rolled out. If you are unsure whether your student counseling services, your communication platform, or a planned survey is based on a valid legal basis, that legal basis is the first thing we will verify for you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>For subsidized nonprofit organizations in the fields of healthcare, social services, and culture.<\/strong> Any entity that is currently funded by the government and therefore considers itself to be \u201cgovernment\u201d under the exemption would be well advised to reconsider that position. The question is no longer how much funding the organization receives, but whether it exercises public authority. For most non-profit organizations, the answer is no. For them, the full fine regime under Article 83 of the GDPR applies, with upper limits of 10 and 20 million euros, although the proportionality test under Article 83(2) will likely result in much lower amounts in practice. Our previous blog on the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/cooperation-duty-gdpr-fine-npo\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Obligation to Cooperate with the DPA<\/a> shows that the Litigation Chamber is already imposing fines on even small nonprofit organizations. Anyone who wants to have their compliance with the GDPR assessed can seek assistance from a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/looking-for-a-gdpr-attorney-in-belgium\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">lawyer specializing in the GDPR<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>For the DPA and for anyone contesting a fine.<\/strong> Until the Court of Justice issues its ruling, Article 221, \u00a7 2 remains in effect, and the Market Court will continue to defend its interpretation of February 27, 2024. A subsidized nonprofit organization that is fined today can therefore still invoke the exemption, but must take into account that the Market Court or the Court of Cassation will stay the proceedings until the Court of Justice has ruled. Conversely, in new cases against subsidized institutions, the DPA can already provide reasons why the exemption does not apply, as it did in 2021. In the meantime, anyone contesting a fine would be well advised to also challenge the proportionality of the penalty, as our blog post about the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/court-of-cassation-upholds-symbolic-gdpr-fine-of-1-euro-is-possible\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">symbolic GDPR fine of 1 euro<\/a> shows, the Market Court has the authority to drastically reduce a fine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>For parents and other interested parties.<\/strong> The conclusion confirms that a complaint filed by a single parent in 2019 could lead to a landmark ruling. Parents who discover that a school is processing their child\u2019s data without providing information or obtaining consent may file a complaint with the DPA. In all other respects, the corrective measures under Article 58(2) of the GDPR\u2014such as an order to bring the processing into compliance\u2014remain available in any case, even against government agencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-veelgestelde-vragen-faq\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Frequently asked questions (FAQ)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4 id=\"h-kan-een-vzw-met-overheidssubsidies-een-gdpr-boete-krijgen\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Can a nonprofit organization that receives government subsidies be fined under the GDPR?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">According to the Advocate General, they do. Receiving subsidies and performing a task in the public interest are not sufficient to qualify as a public authority within the meaning of Article 83(7) of the GDPR. Only entities that exercise public authority powers may be exempted from fines by a Member State. The Court of Justice has yet to confirm this, and until then, the Belgian exemption in Article 221, \u00a7 2 of the Data Protection Act remains formally in effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 id=\"h-valt-mijn-school-onder-de-vrijstelling-van-gdpr-boetes-voor-de-overheid\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Is my school covered by the exemption from GDPR fines for government entities?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Today, however, pursuant to Article 5 and Article 221, \u00a7 2 of the Data Protection Act, which classify subsidized independent schools as public authorities. If the Court of Justice follows its Advocate General, that exemption will no longer apply to school boards governed by private law, because they do not exercise public authority. Official schools operated by municipalities, provinces, or the community education system, however, remain public-law authorities and retain the exemption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 id=\"h-is-een-conclusie-van-de-advocaat-generaal-bindend\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Is an opinion by the Advocate General binding?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">No. The opinion is an independent recommendation to the Court of Justice. The Court generally follows its Advocate General in most cases, but may deviate from it. The ruling in Case C-458\/25 is expected sometime in 2027. Only then will the Court of Cassation rule on the Belgian case, and, if necessary, a third review by the Market Court will follow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 id=\"h-welke-sancties-kan-de-gba-opleggen-aan-een-echte-overheidsinstantie\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">What sanctions can the DPA impose on a genuine government agency?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The exemption under Article 221, \u00a7 2 of the Data Protection Act applies only to administrative fines. The other corrective measures under Article 58(2) of the GDPR remain fully applicable: a warning, a reprimand, an order to comply with a data subject\u2019s request, an order to bring the processing into compliance, a temporary or permanent prohibition on processing, and the publication of the decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-conclusie\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Advocate General advises the Court of Justice to declare the Belgian exemption from GDPR fines for subsidized independent schools to be contrary to Article 83(7) of the GDPR. \u201cPublic authority\u201d is a concept under EU law, and it covers only those who exercise public authority. If the Court follows that advice, a whole range of subsidized nonprofit organizations in Belgium in the fields of education, healthcare, social services, and culture will lose the protection granted to them by the legislature in 2018, and Article 5 of the Data Protection Act will have to be rewritten.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">ICT Legal Guide is the knowledge platform of the Intellectual Property, IT Law, AI Law, Data Protection, and Media Law department at Everest Attorneys, led by Joris Deene, Esq. Our lawyers assist school boards and subsidized organizations in determining their position under the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/data-protection\/\">Belgian Data Protection Rules<\/a>, in designing surveys and student tracking systems that respect the privacy of minors, and in defending against a fine imposed by the DPA on the Marktet Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-layout-flex wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link has-gridlove-acc-background-color has-background wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/contact\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Would you like to know whether your school, healthcare institution, or subsidized nonprofit organization is still covered by the exemption from GDPR fines, or do you need to challenge a decision by the Data Protection Authority? Please contact our lawyers specializing in data protection for an initial assessment of your case.<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Volgens de conclusie van advocaat-generaal Campos S\u00e1nchez-Bordona van 10 september 2026 in zaak C-458\/25 mag Belgi\u00eb een privaatrechtelijke school die gesubsidieerd vrij onderwijs verstrekt niet vrijstellen van administratieve geldboeten onder de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming (AVG). Het begrip &#8220;overheidsinstanties en overheidsorganen&#8221; in artikel 83, lid 7 AVG is een Unierechtelijk begrip dat enkel entiteiten met bevoegdheden [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":103473,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[61],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-103472","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-gdpr"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.0 (Yoast SEO v28.7) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>GDPR-boete voor gesubsidieerde scholen | ICT Rechtswijzer<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Kan een vzw met overheidssubsidies een GDPR-boete krijgen? De advocaat-generaal vindt van wel en zet de Belgische vrijstelling voor scholen op de helling.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/gdpr-fine-subsidized-school-advocate-general\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mag Belgi\u00eb gesubsidieerde vrije scholen vrijstellen van GDPR-boetes?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Kan een vzw met overheidssubsidies een GDPR-boete krijgen? De advocaat-generaal vindt van wel en zet de Belgische vrijstelling voor scholen op de helling.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/gdpr-fine-subsidized-school-advocate-general\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-09-10T17:33:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-09-13T16:12:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/pexels-boom-12716111-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1707\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Joris Deene\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Joris Deene\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Joris Deene\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685\"},\"headline\":\"Mag Belgi\u00eb gesubsidieerde vrije scholen vrijstellen van GDPR-boetes?\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-10T17:33:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-13T16:12:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3416,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/pexels-boom-12716111-scaled.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"GDPR - AVG\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\\\/\",\"name\":\"GDPR-boete voor gesubsidieerde scholen | ICT Rechtswijzer\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/pexels-boom-12716111-scaled.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-10T17:33:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-13T16:12:30+00:00\",\"description\":\"Kan een vzw met overheidssubsidies een GDPR-boete krijgen? De advocaat-generaal vindt van wel en zet de Belgische vrijstelling voor scholen op de helling.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/pexels-boom-12716111-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/pexels-boom-12716111-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":1707},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mag Belgi\u00eb gesubsidieerde vrije scholen vrijstellen van GDPR-boetes?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/\",\"name\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat\",\"description\":\"Advocaten in IP, AI, IT, privacy &amp; media\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":[\"Organization\",\"LegalService\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer\",\"alternateName\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer, kennisplatform van Everest Advocaten\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg\",\"width\":638,\"height\":479,\"caption\":\"ICT Rechtswijzer\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/be.linkedin.com\\\/company\\\/everest-law\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.everest-law.eu\\\/\"],\"description\":\"Kennisplatform van het departement intellectuele eigendom, IT-recht, AI-recht, gegevensbescherming en mediarecht van Everest Advocaten, onder leiding van mr. Joris Deene.\",\"parentOrganization\":{\"@type\":\"LegalService\",\"name\":\"Everest Advocaten\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.everest-law.eu\",\"address\":{\"@type\":\"PostalAddress\",\"streetAddress\":\"Bollebergen 2A bus 20\",\"postalCode\":\"9052\",\"addressLocality\":\"Gent\",\"addressCountry\":\"BE\"}}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685\",\"name\":\"Joris Deene\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Joris Deene\"},\"description\":\"Mr. Joris Deene is advocaat-partner bij Everest Advocaten en leidt het departement intellectuele eigendom, IT-recht, AI-recht, gegevensbescherming en mediarecht. ICT Rechtswijzer is het kennisplatform van dat departement. Joris publiceert en doceert over auteursrecht, merkenrecht, softwarerecht, de AVG, de AI-Act, de DSA en het mediarecht.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/joris-deene-5144096\\\/\"],\"honorificPrefix\":\"Mr.\",\"knowsAbout\":[\"intellectuele eigendom\",\"auteursrecht\",\"merkenrecht\",\"IT-recht\",\"AI-recht\",\"gegevensbescherming\",\"AVG\",\"mediarecht\",\"digitaledienstenverordening\",\"AI-verordening\"],\"knowsLanguage\":[\"Nederlands\",\"Engels\",\"Frans\"],\"jobTitle\":\"Advocaat-partner, hoofd departement intellectuele eigendom, IT-recht, AI-recht, gegevensbescherming en mediarecht\",\"worksFor\":\"Everest Advocaten\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/en\\\/author\\\/joris-deene\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"GDPR Fine for Subsidized Schools | ICT Legal Guide","description":"Can a nonprofit organization that receives government subsidies be fined under the GDPR? The Advocate General believes so and is calling into question the Belgian exemption for schools.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/gdpr-fine-subsidized-school-advocate-general\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mag Belgi\u00eb gesubsidieerde vrije scholen vrijstellen van GDPR-boetes?","og_description":"Kan een vzw met overheidssubsidies een GDPR-boete krijgen? De advocaat-generaal vindt van wel en zet de Belgische vrijstelling voor scholen op de helling.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/gdpr-fine-subsidized-school-advocate-general\/","og_site_name":"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat","article_published_time":"2026-09-10T17:33:27+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-09-13T16:12:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1707,"url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/pexels-boom-12716111-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Joris Deene","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Joris Deene","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\/"},"author":{"name":"Joris Deene","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/person\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685"},"headline":"Mag Belgi\u00eb gesubsidieerde vrije scholen vrijstellen van GDPR-boetes?","datePublished":"2026-09-10T17:33:27+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-13T16:12:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\/"},"wordCount":3416,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/pexels-boom-12716111-scaled.jpg","articleSection":["GDPR - AVG"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\/","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\/","name":"GDPR Fine for Subsidized Schools | ICT Legal Guide","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/pexels-boom-12716111-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2026-09-10T17:33:27+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-13T16:12:30+00:00","description":"Can a nonprofit organization that receives government subsidies be fined under the GDPR? The Advocate General believes so and is calling into question the Belgian exemption for schools.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/pexels-boom-12716111-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/pexels-boom-12716111-scaled.jpg","width":2560,"height":1707},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/gdpr-boete-gesubsidieerde-school-advocaat-generaal\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mag Belgi\u00eb gesubsidieerde vrije scholen vrijstellen van GDPR-boetes?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/","name":"ICT Lawyer","description":"Lawyers in IP, AI, IT, privacy &amp; media","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":["Organization","LegalService"],"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#organization","name":"ICT Legal Guide","alternateName":"ICT Rechtswijzer, kennisplatform van Everest Advocaten","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/joris-deene-auteursrecht-in-een-digitale-omgeving-1-638.jpg","width":638,"height":479,"caption":"ICT Rechtswijzer"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/be.linkedin.com\/company\/everest-law","https:\/\/www.everest-law.eu\/"],"description":"Knowledge platform of the Intellectual Property, IT Law, AI Law, Data Protection, and Media Law department at Everest Advocaten, led by Joris Deene, Esq.","parentOrganization":{"@type":"LegalService","name":"Everest Advocaten","url":"https:\/\/www.everest-law.eu","address":{"@type":"PostalAddress","streetAddress":"Bollebergen 2A bus 20","postalCode":"9052","addressLocality":"Gent","addressCountry":"BE"}}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/person\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685","name":"Joris Deene","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7073c8d7ef4db19fbc2d462ac2571a2b0a3e5c89329cba99b4d3caf0bcd7cfc1?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Joris Deene"},"description":"Mr. Joris Deene is a partner at Everest Attorneys and heads the department of intellectual property, IT law, AI law, data protection, and media law. ICT Legal Guide is that department\u2019s knowledge platform. Joris publishes and teaches on copyright law, trademark law, software law, the GDPR, the AI Act, the DSA, and media law.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/joris-deene-5144096\/"],"honorificPrefix":"Mr.","knowsAbout":["intellectuele eigendom","auteursrecht","merkenrecht","IT-recht","AI-recht","gegevensbescherming","AVG","mediarecht","digitaledienstenverordening","AI-verordening"],"knowsLanguage":["Nederlands","Engels","Frans"],"jobTitle":"Advocaat-partner, hoofd departement intellectuele eigendom, IT-recht, AI-recht, gegevensbescherming en mediarecht","worksFor":"Everest Advocaten","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/author\/joris-deene\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103472","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=103472"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103472\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":103482,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103472\/revisions\/103482"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/103473"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=103472"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=103472"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=103472"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}