{"id":103593,"date":"2026-10-29T14:58:05","date_gmt":"2026-10-29T13:58:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/?p=103593"},"modified":"2026-10-29T14:59:04","modified_gmt":"2026-10-29T13:59:04","slug":"may-the-dpa-determine-which-supervisory-authority-is-listed-in-your-privacy-statement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\/","title":{"rendered":"Can the DPA determine which supervisory authority is listed in your privacy statement?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">No. On October 7, 2026, the Market Court ruled that the Litigation Chamber of the Data Protection Authority (DPA) had exceeded its authority when it ordered an organization to remove the Flemish Supervisory Commission from its privacy statement. The <a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/NL\/TXT\/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">General Data Protection Regulation<\/a> (hereinafter: GDPR) merely requires that the data subject be aware that he or she may file a complaint with a supervisory authority, not which authority has jurisdiction. The case was initiated by the Flemish Supervisory Commission itself, which had not been a party before the Litigation Chamber but appealed the decision regarding CAW East-Flanders as a third-party interested party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In short:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>On October 7, 2026, the Brussels Court of Appeal (Marktet Court Division) overturned Decision 205\/2025 of the Litigation Chamber dated December 8, 2025, to the extent that it ordered CAW East Flanders to amend its privacy statement so that only the DPA is listed as the supervisory authority.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>According to the Market Court, no provision of law grants the Litigation Chamber the authority to determine, by way of an order issued to a data controller, whether the Flemish Supervisory Commission is a supervisory authority.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The ruling does not address the status of the Flemish Supervisory Commission itself; that matter rests with the Council of State, which, as recently as March 31, 2026, ruled that the commission was not a supervisory authority in 2022.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-de-feiten\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">The facts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The East Flanders Center for General Social Work (CAW) received two complaints filed against it with the DPA in 2020 and 2021. These complaints concerned access to meeting notes related to the professional performance of one of the complainants. In addition, the DPA\u2019s Inspection Service made several findings that were unrelated to the complaints. One of these concerned the CAW\u2019s privacy statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As of February 2, 2022, that privacy statement did not refer to the DPA, but to the Flemish Supervisory Commission for the Processing of Personal Data (VTC). An earlier version had, however, mentioned the DPA. Upon revisiting the website on November 28, 2025, the Litigation Chamber noted that the statement now listed both bodies, including their addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses: first the VTC, then the DPA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The VTC is the supervisory authority established by the Flemish Parliament in 2018 to oversee the processing of personal data by Flemish authorities, local governments, and institutions performing public functions. It is an autonomous agency with legal personality pursuant to Article 10\/1 of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ejustice.just.fgov.be\/cgi_loi\/article.pl?language=nl&amp;lg_txt=n&amp;numac_search=2008036273&amp;view_numac=2008036273n#Art.10\/1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Decree of July 18, 2008, on Electronic Administrative Data Exchange<\/a> (hereinafter: the e-Gov Decree). The question of whether it is also a supervisory authority within the meaning of the GDPR has been the subject of debate between the federal and Flemish supervisory authorities since 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In her <a href=\"https:\/\/gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be\/publications\/beslissing-ten-gronde-nr.-205-2025.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">decision 205\/2025 of December 8, 2025<\/a> the Litigation Chamber reprimanded the CAW for denying access and issued several orders. One of these ordered the CAW to amend its privacy statement in accordance with Articles 13(2)(d) and 14(2), (d) of the GDPR, so that it is clear that the DPA is the sole supervisory authority for its processing activities, and not (also) the Flemish Supervisory Commission. The Litigation Chamber justified that order by noting that there is no cooperation agreement regarding the division of responsibilities between the DPA and the VTC, so that, in its view, the VTC does not currently have the status of a full-fledged supervisory authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The VTC was not a party to the proceedings before the Litigation Chamber. Nevertheless, on January 7, 2026, it filed an appeal with the Market Court, the division of the Brussels Court of Appeal DPA. Its appeal was limited to the order regarding the privacy statement. The DPA, in a secondary motion, referred questions for a preliminary ruling to the Constitutional Court and the Court of Justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-de-beslissing\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">The ruling<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Brussels Court of Appeal (Market Court Division) addressed two questions: whether VTC, as a third party, was entitled to file an appeal, and whether the Dispute Resolution Chamber was authorized to issue the order regarding the privacy statement. The judgment was rendered on October 7, 2026 (Brussels Court of Appeal (Market Court) October 7, 2026, 2026\/AR\/43).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-het-beroep-van-een-derde-die-geen-partij-was-voor-de-geschillenkamer\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">An appeal by a third party who was not a party to the proceedings before the Litigation Chamber<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Article 108, \u00a7 3 of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ejustice.just.fgov.be\/cgi_loi\/article.pl?language=nl&amp;lg_txt=n&amp;numac_search=2017031916&amp;view_numac=2017031916n#Art.108\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">act of December 3, 2017, Establishing the Data Protection Authority<\/a> (hereinafter: WOG) allows any third party to file an appeal with the Market Court within thirty days of the publication of a decision on the DPA\u2019s website. A third party is a person who was not a party to the proceedings before the Litigation Chamber but who suffers a personal, direct, certain, current, and lawful detriment as a result of the decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Market Court ruled that the VTC meets that description. According to the Court of Appeal, an order stating that it may not be listed as a supervisory authority in a privacy statement undeniably undermines its legal status. The appeal was also filed in a timely manner and was therefore admissible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-de-bevoegdheid-van-de-geschillenkamer-om-de-privacyverklaring-te-laten-aanpassen\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Litigation Chamber\u2019s authority to have the privacy statement amended<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Marktet Court based its decision on a principle of public order: an administrative authority has only the powers granted to it by law. The court of appeal cited a ruling by the Council of State (<a href=\"https:\/\/juportal.be\/content\/ECLI:BE:RVSCE:2019:ARR.244.424\/NL\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Council of State, May 9, 2019, No. 244.424<\/a>). Subsequently, the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Litigation Chamber: Article 4, \u00a7 1 of the WOG grants the DPA the authority to oversee compliance with the GDPR; Article 95, \u00a7 1 of the WOG governs the handling of complaints; and Article 100, \u00a7 1 of the WOG lists sixteen measures that the Litigation Chamber may take following a hearing on the merits. These include an order to bring processing into compliance (Article 100, \u00a7 1, 9\u00b0 of the WOG).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court of Appeal interpreted that order in light of the transparency requirement under the GDPR. Articles 13(2)(d) and 14(2)(e) of the GDPR (the Litigation Chamber had erroneously referred to Article 14(2)(d)) require the data controller to inform the data subject that he or she has the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority. According to the Market Court, these provisions apparently do not require the privacy statement to specify exactly which authority is competent at that particular time. The GDPR permits multiple supervisory authorities per Member State, and this was undisputed, according to the Court of Appeal. The GDPR does require precise identification of the data controller itself and the contact details of the data protection officer (Articles 13(1) and 14(1) of the GDPR), but not of the supervisory authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Market Court therefore concluded that the order to remove the VTC from the privacy statement is not an order within the meaning of Article 100, \u00a7 1, 9\u00b0 of the WOG, read in conjunction with Articles 13(2)(d) and 14(2)(e) of the GDPR. The Litigation Chamber could have ordered the CAW to include the right to file a complaint if it was missing. However, no provision grants it the authority to assess whether the VTC is a supervisory authority, nor to issue an order to the CAW on that basis, given that there is no cooperation agreement regarding the division of responsibilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">According to the Court of Appeal, that question belongs in proceedings on the merits challenging a decision by one regulatory authority or another. The Market Court cited the ruling of the <a href=\"https:\/\/juportal.be\/content\/ECLI:BE:RVSCE:2026:ARR.266.244\/NL\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Council of State, March 31, 2026, No. 266.244<\/a> as an example and to an appeal pending before the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State under case number 243.534\/X-18.926.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court ruled that the Litigation Chamber had manifestly exceeded its substantive jurisdiction. The contested decision was overturned on that point. The Court of Appeal did not address the VTC\u2019s remaining grievances, as they could not lead to a broader annulment. Nor did it see any reason to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court or the Court of Justice. The DPA was ordered to pay the costs: a litigation fee of 1,883.72 euros and a contribution of 26 euros to the Budget Fund for secondary legal aid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-juridische-analyse-en-duiding\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Legal analysis and interpretation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-waarom-de-geschillenkamer-het-caw-niet-mocht-gebruiken-om-de-vtc-te-treffen\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Why the Litigation Chamber was not allowed to use the CAW to enforce the VTC<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On November 28, 2025, the CAW\u2019s privacy statement listed both the VTC and the DPA, each with full contact information. Therefore, a data subject who wished to file a complaint could at least locate the federal supervisory authority. Nevertheless, the Litigation Chamber ordered the VTC to be removed, and it justified this not on the grounds of a lack of information for the data subject, but based on its own assessment of the VTC\u2019s status. The Market Court saw this as the crux of the problem: the order did not serve the purpose of transparency but rather resolved an institutional dispute at the expense of a data controller.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The DPA had a valid counterargument. Article 13(2)(d) of the GDPR is a transparency provision, and anyone who directs the data subject to an authority that is not authorized to handle complaints is providing incorrect information. Inaccurate information does not constitute proper processing, and Article 100, \u00a7 1, 9\u00b0 of the WOG allows the Litigation Chamber to order that processing be brought into compliance. From this perspective, the deletion of the VTC is nothing more than the correction of an error in the privacy statement. The Litigation Chamber had already followed this line of reasoning in its <a href=\"https:\/\/gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be\/publications\/beslissing-ten-gronde-nr.-56-2026.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Decision 56\/2026 of March 12, 2026<\/a>, using the same wording regarding the missing cooperation agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That interpretation does not hold up for two reasons. The first is the text of the GDPR: the provision refers to \u201ca\u201d supervisory authority and requires only that the right to file a complaint be mentioned. As long as that right is included in the statement, there is no violation that the Litigation Chamber can order to be remedied. The second is legal protection. An order against the CAW undermines the VTC\u2019s very reason for existence, while the VTC was not given the opportunity to be heard before the Litigation Chamber. The Market Court remedied this procedural issue by admitting the VTC as a third-party interested party, but the proper venue for such a dispute is the court that rules on the jurisdiction of supervisory authorities, not an order issued in an individual complaint case. This is consistent with an earlier ruling in which the Marktet Court overturned a DPA decision because the DPA lacked jurisdiction over the processing in question, as we discussed in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/is-the-gba-competent-for-alle-data-processing-a-ruling-on-security-clearances-and-the-right-to-a-copy\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">our analysis of security clearances and the right to a copy<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-wat-de-raad-van-state-en-het-grondwettelijk-hof-al-wel-over-de-vtc-beslisten\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">What the Council of State and the Constitutional Court have already ruled regarding the VTC<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The October 7, 2026, ruling says nothing about whether the VTC is a regulatory authority. Anyone who interprets the ruling as recognition of the VTC is reading too much into it. The case law of the other courts currently points in the opposite direction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In 2023, the Constitutional Court ruled twice that the VTC cannot be considered a competent supervisory authority within the meaning of Article 36, paragraph 4 of the GDPR, because it had not been notified to the European institutions and there was no procedure in place to ensure its participation in the consistency mechanism (<a href=\"https:\/\/nl.const-court.be\/ARR\/26\/2023\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">GwH February 16, 2023, No. 26\/2023<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/nl.const-court.be\/ARR\/92\/2023\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">GwH June 15, 2023, No. 92\/2023<\/a>). The consistency mechanism is the procedure set forth in Article 63 of the GDPR through which the supervisory authorities of the Member States ensure the uniform application of the Regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In 2026, the Council of State extended that line of reasoning to enforcement. In its ruling of March 31, 2026, No. 266.244, the Council of State overturned a decision by the VTC dated July 27, 2022, which had reprimanded a city and a public social welfare center (OCMW) and imposed a processing ban. At that time, the VTC could not be considered a supervisory authority, and Article 10\/7, \u00a7 1 of the e-Gov Decree did not provide it with an independent legal basis, because that provision itself refers to Article 58, paragraph 2 of the GDPR. The Council of State did note, however, that steps had been taken following the Constitutional Court\u2019s rulings to bring the VTC into compliance, but that those steps were taken after the contested decision was issued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Those steps do indeed exist. The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ejustice.just.fgov.be\/cgi_loi\/article.pl?language=nl&amp;lg_txt=n&amp;numac_search=2024003377&amp;view_numac=2024003377n#Art.1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Decree of March 29, 2024<\/a> added to Article 10\/7, \u00a7 3 of the e-Gov Decree that the VTC shall cooperate with the DPA and assist in its role as joint representative in the coherence mechanism. According to the Litigation Chamber, what is still missing is a cooperation agreement on the division of responsibilities. As long as that is not in place, two positions will continue to coexist: the DPA maintains that the VTC is not a fully-fledged authority, and the VTC continues to handle complaints based on the e-Gov Decree. Legal scholars had already identified this tension at the time of the VTC\u2019s establishment. DE BOT inferred from Article 10\/1 of the e-Gov Decree that the GBA would no longer have jurisdiction over Flemish authorities, but at the same time pointed out that it had already been noted during the parliamentary debate that the DPA does not sufficiently meet the requirements of the GDPR (D. DE BOT, De toepassing van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming in de Belgische context, Mechelen, Wolters Kluwer, 2020, 980\u2013981, nos. 2509\u20132510). The Market Court\u2019s ruling does not decide that question; it refers it to the Council of State, where the case is pending under case number 243.534\/X-18.926.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-een-toezichthouder-die-als-derde-belanghebbende-naar-het-marktenhof-stapt\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">A regulator who appears before the Market Court as a third-party interested party<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In December 2025, the VTC faced a practical problem. It was not a party to the proceedings before the Litigation Chamber, so it could not submit its arguments, yet the decision in the operative part of the judgment concerned it. Until early 2024, there was little it could do about this. Article 108, \u00a7 3 of the WOG, inserted by the Act of September 7, 2023, and in effect since February 17, 2024, allows any third party with a vested interest to file an appeal with the Market Court within thirty days of the decision\u2019s publication on the DPA\u2019s website.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Market Court applied that provision broadly in this case. The disadvantage to the VTC was neither financial nor factual, but institutional: an order stating that it does not belong in a privacy statement undermines its position as a supervisory authority. That was sufficient. In practice, this means that not only the data controller and the complainant can challenge a DPA decision, but also anyone named in the decision who was not a party to it. The thirty-day period then begins upon publication on the website, not upon notification, and this requires that party to monitor the DPA\u2019s publications themselves. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-wat-betekent-dit-concreet\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Specifically, what does this mean?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>For Flemish agencies, local governments, and organizations that perform a public function.<\/strong> A CAW, an OCMW, a city, or a welfare organization recognized by Flanders may continue to mention the VTC in its privacy statement. The ruling prevents the DPA from ordering the removal of that reference via an injunction. Those who want certainty should mention both supervisory authorities, as the CAW ultimately did: that way, the right to file a complaint is never lost, regardless of which interpretation prevails. What the ruling does not do is guarantee that a decision by the VTC against your organization will stand; in March 2026, the Council of State overturned another such decision on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. If your organization receives a corrective measure from the VTC or an order from the DPA, the first thing we will verify for you is that regulator\u2019s jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>For any data controller drafting a privacy statement.<\/strong> The mandatory content of Articles 13 and 14 of the GDPR is more limited than is often thought. The identity and contact information of the data controller and the data protection officer must be exactly correct. For the supervisory authority, it is sufficient to state that the data subject has the right to lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority. The name and address of the DPA are useful and common, but the ruling confirms that a duplicate mention\u2014or the omission of the name of the competent supervisory authority\u2014does not in itself constitute a violation as long as the right to lodge a complaint is stated. Have your privacy statement reviewed by a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/looking-for-a-gdpr-attorney-in-belgium\/\">an attorney specializing in the GDPR<\/a>, focus on the legal grounds, the retention periods, and the rights of the data subject\u2014areas in which the Litigation Chamber did identify shortcomings in the same decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>For those who are mentioned in a DPA decision without being a party to it.<\/strong> A decision by the Litigation Chamber may have consequences for a data processor, another government agency, or a supervisory authority that never participated in the proceedings. Article 108, \u00a7 3 of the WOG grants that party thirty days from the date of publication on the DPA\u2019s website to file an appeal. Anyone who responds only after receiving a letter or a complaint from a customer is usually too late. The ruling also illustrates what such an appeal can achieve: a partial reversal, with costs borne by the DPA. This is consistent with a broader trend in which the Market Court overturns orders of the Litigation Chamber when they lack a legal basis or a specific subject matter, as in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/challenging-a-gba-fine-at-the-marktenhof\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">the case regarding the fine and the orders against a data broker<\/a>. You can read more about the rules themselves on our pages about the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/data-protection\/\">data protection law<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-veelgestelde-vragen-faq\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Frequently asked questions (FAQ)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-welke-toezichthoudende-autoriteit-moet-ik-in-mijn-privacyverklaring-vermelden\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Which supervisory authority should I list in my privacy policy?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The GDPR only requires you to inform the data subject that he or she has the right to file a complaint with a supervisory authority. You are not required to specify exactly which authority has jurisdiction. In practice, it is best to mention the Data Protection Authority along with its contact information. In addition, a Flemish authority or an organization performing a public function may also mention the Flemish Supervisory Commission; on October 7, 2026, the Market Court ruled that the DPA cannot require the removal of that reference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-is-de-vlaamse-toezichtcommissie-een-toezichthoudende-autoriteit-onder-de-avg\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Is the Flemish Supervisory Commission a supervisory authority under the GDPR?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">There is no definitive answer to this question. The Constitutional Court and the Council of State ruled in 2023 and 2026 that the VTC could not be considered a supervisory authority at the relevant times, because it had not been notified to the European institutions and did not participate in the consistency mechanism. Since then, the Flemish Parliament has amended the e-Gov Decree, but a cooperation agreement with the DPA is still lacking. The ruling of the Market Court dated October 7, 2026, does not address this question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-kan-ik-in-beroep-gaan-tegen-een-beslissing-van-de-gba-als-ik-geen-partij-was\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Can I appeal a decision by the DPA if I was not a party to the case?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Yes. Since February 17, 2024, any third party may, pursuant to Article 108, \u00a7 3 of the WOG, file an appeal with the Market Court against a decision of the Litigation Chamber. You must demonstrate that the decision causes you a personal, direct, certain, current, and lawful detriment. The thirty-day period begins on the date the decision is published on the DPA\u2019s website, not upon notification to you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-mijn-organisatie-kreeg-een-bevel-van-de-gba-of-van-de-vtc-moet-ik-dat-uitvoeren\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">My organization received an order from the DPA or the VTC; do I have to comply with it?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As a general rule, a decision by the Litigation Chamber is provisionally enforceable, even if you file an appeal. Nevertheless, it is worth first verifying whether the regulator had jurisdiction. On October 7, 2026, the Market Court overturned an order issued by the DPA because it fell outside the jurisdiction of the Litigation Chamber, and on March 31, 2026, the Council of State overturned a reprimand and a processing ban issued by the VTC because it was not a supervisory authority. An order issued by an unauthorized body is not enforceable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-conclusie\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Market Court sets a limit on what the Litigation Chamber can require a data controller to do through an order. Articles 13 and 14 of the GDPR require that the privacy statement mention the right to file a complaint, not that it identify the competent supervisory authority, and the WOG does not grant the Litigation Chamber the authority to decide in an individual case whether the Flemish Supervisory Commission is a supervisory authority. That question remains open in Belgium as long as the Council of State has not issued a final ruling on the matter and there is no cooperation agreement between the two supervisory authorities.<\/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. Our attorneys assist government agencies, social welfare organizations, and businesses with complaints and investigations by the DPA and the VTC, with appeals before the Market Court, and with the review of their privacy statements.<\/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\">Has your organization received an order or a reprimand from the DPA or the Flemish Supervisory Commission, or would you like to know whether your privacy statement complies with Articles 13 and 14 of the GDPR? Please contact our attorneys specializing in data protection for an initial assessment of your case.<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-embedpress-document\"><div id=\"ep-gutenberg-content-d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e\" class=\"ep-gutenberg-content\"><div class=\"embedpress-document-embed ep-doc-embedpress-pdf-1793282328353\" style=\"height:600;width:600\" data-embed-type=\"Document\" data-ep-views=\"off\" data-ep-downloads=\"off\"><div class=\"ep-embed-content-wraper\"><div class=\"position-right-wraper gutenberg-doc-wraper\"><div class=\"main-content-wraper\"><div class=\"embedpress-embed-document-pdf embedpress-pdf-1793282328353\" style=\"height:600px;width:600px\" data-emid=\"embedpress-pdf-1793282328353\"><embed title=\"110. Decision of the Flemish Supervisory Commission (2026AR43), October 7, 2026\" src=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/110.-Arrest-Vlaamse-Toezichtcommissie-2026AR43-7-oktober-2026.pdf\" style=\"height:600px;width:600px;max-width:100%\"\/><\/div><\/div><style><\/style><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Nee. Het Marktenhof oordeelde op 7 oktober 2026 dat de Geschillenkamer van de Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit (GBA) haar bevoegdheid te buiten ging toen zij een organisatie beval de Vlaamse Toezichtcommissie uit haar privacyverklaring te schrappen. De Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming (hierna: AVG) vraagt enkel dat de betrokkene weet dat hij klacht kan indienen bij een toezichthoudende autoriteit, niet [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":103594,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[61],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-103593","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 v28.8) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>GBA mag toezichthouder in privacyverklaring niet dicteren<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Welke toezichthoudende autoriteit vermelden in uw privacyverklaring? Het Marktenhof floot de GBA terug. Lees wat de AVG van een privacyverklaring vraagt. [\" \/>\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\/may-the-dpa-determine-which-supervisory-authority-is-listed-in-your-privacy-statement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mag de GBA bepalen welke toezichthouder in uw privacyverklaring staat?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Welke toezichthoudende autoriteit vermelden in uw privacyverklaring? Het Marktenhof floot de GBA terug. Lees wat de AVG van een privacyverklaring vraagt. [\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/may-the-dpa-determine-which-supervisory-authority-is-listed-in-your-privacy-statement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-10-29T13:58:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-10-29T13:59:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/pexels-wei-huang-1013701991-25757544-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1613\" \/>\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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Joris Deene\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685\"},\"headline\":\"Mag de GBA bepalen welke toezichthouder in uw privacyverklaring staat?\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-29T13:58:05+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-10-29T13:59:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3069,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/pexels-wei-huang-1013701991-25757544-scaled.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"GDPR - AVG\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\\\/\",\"name\":\"GBA mag toezichthouder in privacyverklaring niet dicteren\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/pexels-wei-huang-1013701991-25757544-scaled.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-29T13:58:05+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-10-29T13:59:04+00:00\",\"description\":\"Welke toezichthoudende autoriteit vermelden in uw privacyverklaring? Het Marktenhof floot de GBA terug. Lees wat de AVG van een privacyverklaring vraagt. [\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/pexels-wei-huang-1013701991-25757544-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/pexels-wei-huang-1013701991-25757544-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":1613},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mag de GBA bepalen welke toezichthouder in uw privacyverklaring staat?\"}]},{\"@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":"The GBA May Not Dictate the Supervisory Authority in the Privacy Statement","description":"Which supervisory authority should you list in your privacy statement? The Marktenhof ruled against the GBA. Read about what the GDPR requires of a privacy statement. [","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\/may-the-dpa-determine-which-supervisory-authority-is-listed-in-your-privacy-statement\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mag de GBA bepalen welke toezichthouder in uw privacyverklaring staat?","og_description":"Welke toezichthoudende autoriteit vermelden in uw privacyverklaring? Het Marktenhof floot de GBA terug. Lees wat de AVG van een privacyverklaring vraagt. [","og_url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/may-the-dpa-determine-which-supervisory-authority-is-listed-in-your-privacy-statement\/","og_site_name":"ICT Rechtswijzer Advocaat","article_published_time":"2026-10-29T13:58:05+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-10-29T13:59:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1613,"url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/pexels-wei-huang-1013701991-25757544-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Joris Deene","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Joris Deene","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\/"},"author":{"name":"Joris Deene","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#\/schema\/person\/29025dc007e8d33a89422580a534d685"},"headline":"Mag de GBA bepalen welke toezichthouder in uw privacyverklaring staat?","datePublished":"2026-10-29T13:58:05+00:00","dateModified":"2026-10-29T13:59:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\/"},"wordCount":3069,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/pexels-wei-huang-1013701991-25757544-scaled.jpg","articleSection":["GDPR - AVG"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\/","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\/","name":"The GBA May Not Dictate the Supervisory Authority in the Privacy Statement","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/pexels-wei-huang-1013701991-25757544-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2026-10-29T13:58:05+00:00","dateModified":"2026-10-29T13:59:04+00:00","description":"Which supervisory authority should you list in your privacy statement? The Marktenhof ruled against the GBA. Read about what the GDPR requires of a privacy statement. [","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/pexels-wei-huang-1013701991-25757544-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/pexels-wei-huang-1013701991-25757544-scaled.jpg","width":2560,"height":1613},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/mag-de-gba-bepalen-welke-toezichthouder-in-uw-privacyverklaring-staat\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mag de GBA bepalen welke toezichthouder in uw privacyverklaring staat?"}]},{"@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\/103593","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=103593"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103593\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":103597,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103593\/revisions\/103597"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/103594"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=103593"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=103593"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=103593"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}