Rb. Amsterdam – ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:10200

27 January 2026

Lde:

{{COURTdecisionBOX

|Case_Number_Name=C/13/770276 / HA ZA 25-1129
|ECLI=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:10200

|Original_Source_Name_1=Rechtspraak
|Original_Source_Link_1=https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:10200&showbutton=true&keyword=avg&idx=5
|Original_Source_Language_1=Dutch
|Original_Source_Language__Code_1=NL
|Original_Source_Name_2=
|Original_Source_Link_2=
|Original_Source_Language_2=
|Original_Source_Language__Code_2=

|Date_Decided=17.12.2025
|Date_Published=20.01.2026
|Year=2025

|National_Law_Name_1=
|National_Law_Link_1=
|National_Law_Name_2=
|National_Law_Link_2=

|Party_Name_1=
|Party_Link_1=
|Party_Name_2=
|Party_Link_2=

|Initial_Contributor=lde
|
}}

A court held that a newspaper lawfully published an article identifying an individual convicted for sexual exploitation of minors, finding that journalistic freedom outweighed the data subject’s privacy rights. According to the court, the publication complied with [[Article 10 GDPR]], as it was factually accurate and proportionate.

== English Summary ==

=== Facts ===
The controller is a national newspaper that published an article reporting on the criminal conviction of the data subject for the sexual exploitation of two underage girls. The article included information about the criminal proceedings and identified the data subject by name, while omitting his surname.

The data subject initiated civil proceedings against the controller, arguing that the publication unlawfully interfered with his right to privacy and data protection, in particular under [[Article 10 GDPR]]. He claimed that the disclosure of his identity and professional background made him easily identifiable and caused disproportionate reputational harm. He further argued that the offence was relatively minor and did not justify such intrusive reporting.

The controller argued that it had acted within its journalistic freedom and fulfilled its duty to inform the public about serious criminal offences. It maintained that sufficient care had been taken to limit identification by omitting the data subject’s surname and that the reporting was accurate, balanced, and in the public interest.

=== Holding ===
The Court rejected the data subject’s claims and held that the publication was lawful.

The Court carried out a balancing exercise between the data subject’s right to respect for private life under Article 8 ECHR and the controller’s freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR, as required when applying [[Article 10 GDPR]]. It found that the balance weighed in favour of the controller.

In particular, the Court held that the article was based on accurate and established facts, namely a criminal conviction. The disclosure contributed to a debate of general public interest, as sexual exploitation of minors, especially in the context of online platforms, raises serious societal concerns, regardless of the data subject’s characterisation of the offence as “light”.

The Court further considered the data subject’s professional background and found that mentioning his profession was justified, as it had been relevant in the criminal sentencing and omitting it could have led to unwarranted suspicion of others in the same profession. The Court emphasised that the right to protection of reputation cannot be relied upon where reputational damage is a foreseeable consequence of one’s own criminal conduct.

Finally, the Court found that the controller had acted proportionately, that sufficient steps had been taken to limit identification, and that the overall content, form, and consequences of the publication did not require rectification or compensation.

== Comment ==
”Share your comments here!”

== Further Resources ==
”Share blogs or news articles here!”

== English Machine Translation of the Decision ==
The decision below is a machine translation of the Dutch original. Please refer to the Dutch original for more details.

<pre>
Case number: C/13/770276 / HA ZA 25-1129

Judgment of December 17, 2025

in the case of

[plaintiff],

residing in [place of residence],

plaintiff,

hereinafter referred to as: [plaintiff],

attorney: Mr. J.M. Geelkerken,

against

the private limited liability company

MEDIAHUIS NRC B.V.,

established in Amsterdam,

defendant,

hereinafter referred to as: NRC,

attorney: Mr. L. Oranje.
1. The case in brief
1.1.

[plaintiff] initiated proceedings against NRC because he wants NRC to amend an article it published on its website in April 2022 (hereinafter: the Article). The article concerns a criminal case against [claimant], which was heard on March 31, 2022, after which he was sentenced two weeks later by the Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court to a (partially suspended) prison sentence for the sexual exploitation of two underage girls. In addition to the conviction and the sentence, the article lists [claimant]’s first name, age, and profession. According to [claimant], this is unlawful against him because the article damages his honor and reputation and violates the General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter: GDPR). He therefore requests in these proceedings that the court order NRC to amend the article by removing all (criminal) personal data from it, under penalty of a fine, and to pay him damages.
1.2.

NRC denies that the article is unlawful. It points out that it is a fundamental principle of our constitutional state that serious abuses may be discussed publicly. NRC reported on what was discussed at the public hearing and the sentence imposed. The manner of reporting, with the omission of the surname (and not even the initial of the surname) and the omission of various personal details and circumstances that arose in the case, falls well within the limits of what is permissible and is protected by freedom of expression. Furthermore, according to NRC, there is no violation of the GDPR.
1.3.

In light of the claim, the court must balance the right to protection of [plaintiff]’s honor, good name, and privacy, as enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter: ECHR), against NRC’s right to freedom of expression, including freedom of the press, enshrined in Article 10, paragraph 1, ECHR. This balancing of interests favors NRC in this case. The article is therefore not unlawful within the meaning of Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code (hereinafter: BW). The article also does not conflict with the GDPR and/or UAVG. Therefore, the article does not need to be amended, and NRC is not required to pay damages. [Plaintiff]’s claims are dismissed. This ruling is explained in more detail below.
2 The procedure
2.1.

The course of the proceedings is apparent from:

–

the petition, received by the court registry on July 10, 2024, with attachments,
–

the interlocutory order of August 22, 2024, in which an oral hearing was scheduled,
–

the email from Mr. Geelkerken dated March 3, 2025, in which he requests the court to refer the proceedings to the summons procedure, making use of the exchange provision of Article 69 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP),
–

the notice from this court dated March 3, 2025, in which the parties were informed that the hearing would not take place and that the petition had been referred to the (internal) petition roll for the issuance of a (referral order),
–

the email from Mr. Geelkerken dated April 9, 2025, with attachments, namely a summons pursuant to Article 69 CCP, with exhibits,
–

the order of May 8, 2025, in which the proceedings were referred to the summons procedure and [plaintiff] was ordered to improve and/or supplement the introductory document as referred to in Article 69, paragraph 1, of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure,

the message from Mr. Geelkerken dated June 10, 2025, in which he points out that he has already submitted an amended document, the summons,

the summons, as served on NRC on July 9, 2025,

the statement of defense, with exhibits,

the interlocutory judgment of August 20, 2025, in which an oral hearing was scheduled,

the abbreviated minutes of the oral hearing of November 4, 2025, as well as the notes taken by the clerk of the court of that oral hearing, which are in the file.

3 The Facts
3.1.

[Plaintiff] worked in healthcare, most recently as [position name] at a [healthcare provider].
3.2.

NRC publishes the national daily newspaper NRC Handelsblad and [website]. Its website features a section called “The Session.” This section publishes a weekly article describing a legal case, with the aim of informing readers about the daily operations of the judiciary.
3.3.

On March 31, 2022, an NRC editor attended the hearing of [plaintiff]’s criminal case in the Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court, Breda location. Two weeks later, on April 14, 2022, [plaintiff] was sentenced by the three-judge chamber to a three-year prison sentence, six months of which were suspended, for the sexual exploitation of two underage girls.
3.4.

On [date] 2022, NRC published the article about the hearing and the sentence [claimant] received on its website, in the “The Hearing” section. The article is titled “[article title].” The article describes the hearing and includes the following passages:

“The Hearing [claimant] (32) is suspected of sexually exploiting two 17-year-old girls.

(…)

[claimant] is now on trial for sexually exploiting two minors: (…) “I’ve written my story as concisely as possible,” he says willingly. [claimant] is [position name] and has been in pretrial detention for a year.

He knew the girl through a dating site. They had sex once. [claimant] says they both consented. He didn’t know she was a minor and lied about her age, he says. He asked her for identification in vain. He says he doesn’t want to shirk his responsibilities, “but I was also a bit taken in.”

(…)

He also met the victim of the 2019 case online. She was seventeen. [Plaintiff] again says he “absolutely didn’t know that.”

(…)

According to the prosecutor, the case file indicates that [plaintiff] “also worked as a pimp in addition to his job as [position name].”

(…)

Two weeks later, [plaintiff] learned he was sentenced to three years in prison, six months of which were suspended. According to the court, he acted “very manipulative and calculated.” (…)”
3.5.

If the search query “[claimant] [job title]” is entered into the Google Search engine, a URL (from Facebook) that refers to the Article will appear among the search results.
3.6.

On March 12, 2024, [claimant]’s lawyer requested NRC to remove [claimant]’s criminal record data from the Article.
3.7.

NRC has refused to do so to date.
4 The dispute
4.1.

[claimant] claims – in summary – that the court, by judgment, provisionally enforceable to the extent possible:

Primarily

I. Orders NRC to immediately amend the Article and remove all personal data, including his first name, age, and profession, under penalty of a daily penalty of €750, plus statutory interest,

II. Orders NRC to pay damages for non-pecuniary damages of € €750,

alternatively

III. alternatively, provides a measure that ensures that no (criminal) personal data of [claimant] are processed by NRC,

primarily and alternatively

IV. orders NRC to pay the legal costs.
4.2.

[claimant] bases his claims on the fact that the publication of the Article on the NRC website is unlawful within the meaning of Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code, because, in short, NRC processed his criminal personal data in it, thereby damaging his honor and reputation and acting in violation of the GDPR. The Article mentions his first name, age, and profession. In the context of the balancing of interests, NRC’s right to freedom of expression (Article 10, paragraph 1, ECHR) must be limited in favor of [claimant]’s interest in the protection of his honor, reputation, and privacy (Article 8 ECHR). The balancing of interests to be made in this context must take into account that the fact for which [claimant] [Plaintiff]’s sentence is relatively light, he has since served his imposed sentence, and he is experiencing significant inconvenience from the Article, both in his private life and in his professional affairs. The mention of his first name, age, and profession makes it very easy to determine that it concerns [Plaintiff], even though this serves no other purpose than to harm him. Furthermore, it is unnecessary to include his criminal record in the Article, so that Article 10 of the GDPR has also been violated. The publication is therefore unlawful and must be amended. Furthermore, due to the unlawfulness of the published material, NRC is obligated to pay [Plaintiff] damages for non-pecuniary damages, according to [Plaintiff].
4.3.

NRC disagrees with the claims and argues that they should be dismissed, with [Plaintiff] being ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.
4.4.

The parties’ arguments will be addressed in more detail below, as necessary.
5 The Assessment
Analysis Framework
5.1.

This case concerns a conflict between two fundamental rights: the right to respect for [claimant]’s privacy, protected by Article 8 ECHR, and the right to freedom of expression of NRC, including freedom of the press, protected by Article 10 ECHR. If [claimant]’s claims were granted, this would mean that NRC’s freedom of expression and press would be restricted. A restriction of this right is permitted under Article 10, paragraph 2 ECHR, only if it is provided for by law and is necessary in a democratic society, for example, to protect the reputation and rights of others. A restriction is provided for by law if the court finds that the Article is unlawful towards [claimant] within the meaning of Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code.
5.2.

To determine which right – the right to freedom of expression or the right to protect one’s honor or reputation – outweighs the other, the respective interests must be weighed, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The finding that one of these rights outweighs the other means that the infringement of the other right meets the necessity test. The following non-exhaustive criteria have been developed from European and national case law for assessing the (un)lawfulness of a publication:

–
the extent to which the statements are supported by the available factual evidence;
–

the extent to which the publication contributes to a (public) debate of general interest;
–

the degree of notoriety of the person involved and their previous behavior in relation to the media;
–

the content, form, and consequences of the publication for the person to whom the statements relate;
–

whether or not an opportunity to respond was provided. These circumstances are not all equally weighted. Which circumstances apply and how much weight should be attached to them depends on the specific circumstances of the case. When published information is (partly) factual in nature, the first-mentioned circumstance is given significant weight.

Balance of Interests
5.3.

Based on an assessment of the circumstances of the case against the above criteria, the court concludes that the Article is not unlawful towards [plaintiff]. The circumstances that play a role in this case are discussed below.

i. Sufficient Support in the Facts
5.4.

First of all, it is important that the Article is sufficiently supported by the facts. It is undisputed that the Article only mentions facts that emerged during the criminal hearing or were stated in the judgment of the Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court (hereinafter: the criminal judgment) (submitted by NRC in these proceedings). Since the Article does not contain any inaccuracies, this plays an important role in the balancing of interests, and indeed in NRC’s favor.

ii. Contribution to the public debate
5.5.

Furthermore, it is important that the article concerns the conviction of [claimant] for sexually exploiting two underage girls with whom he had come into contact online. Sexual exploitation is a serious abuse that affects society as a whole, especially when the victims are minors and when this sexual exploitation occurred via online platforms. This makes it a topic of public interest. The seriousness of the offenses in this case is confirmed by the fact that the criminal case was heard by the multi-judge chamber of the Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court and that [claimant] received a fairly substantial (partly suspended) prison sentence for committing the offenses. Contrary to [claimant]’s argument, this is therefore not a “minor offense.” All this means that there is a significant public interest in publishing the article, so this also weighs in favor of NRC when weighing the interests.

iii. Content and form of the publication
5.6.

Furthermore, the way in which NRC wrote and formatted the article is relevant. In this context, the parties dispute whether [plaintiff]’s first name, age, and profession should have been included. It is argued that, in order to fulfill its role in society, the press has considerable freedom to decide which details it wishes to publish to ensure the credibility of an article, provided that the choices made are based on ethical rules and codes of conduct applicable within journalism. When it comes to journalists’ contributions to the public debate, for example, in the case of serious criminal offenses such as those at issue here, there is little room for restrictions on freedom of expression. This is because the press’s duty is to disseminate information, and the public has the right to receive that information.1 Mentioning someone’s name is also considered, in principle, a choice that falls under journalistic freedom.2
5.7.

[Plaintiff]’s objection to the article specifically concerns the fact that it mentions his profession, combined with his first name and age, because this is a significant inconvenience to him as a professional. He argues that the group of male [name of position] is very small and that, since there are only a few male [name of position] individuals with his first name (and age), it will quickly become clear that it refers to him.
5.8.

However, the court agrees with NRC’s argument that mentioning [name of position]’s profession is, in any case, important for the context of his criminal conduct, as it reflects his position in society and, moreover, he plays an important role in public life through his profession. Moreover, his profession was indeed found to be relevant in the criminal case. During the hearing, the public prosecutor pointed out that [plaintiff] worked as [name of position], and the sentence also shows that this was taken into account in determining the sentence.
5.9.

The court also agrees with NRC that mentioning [claimant]’s age is also relevant to the context of his criminal conduct, given that he—as an adult—was convicted of sexually exploiting two underage girls. Regarding the mention of his first name, NRC correctly argues that this is also relevant, as it excludes and exonerates other male [name of position]. This is important because the group of male [name of position], as [claimant] himself has also argued, is relatively small. If the first name were not mentioned, this could mean that all other male [name of position] could be considered “suspect.” Moreover, NRC took [claimant]’s interests into account by not mentioning his full name, but only his first name. The first letter of his surname was omitted, even though mentioning it is a common and generally accepted way to publish the names of suspects (in this case, even a convicted person). In short, mentioning the profession, age, and—in this case only—the first name is considered relevant to the serious issue being reported, and therefore falls under journalistic freedom in principle. Furthermore, NRC pointed out that this information contributes to the verifiability, credibility, and authority of the message. With all this, NRC has sufficiently demonstrated that including this information contributes to the persuasiveness of the article and thus to the public interest.
5.10.

Moreover, NRC also took [claimant]’s interests into account by (intentionally) omitting certain details from the criminal judgment and by omitting personal circumstances, such as his place of residence, family circumstances, certain medical conditions, and his former employer. The [claimant]’s positions, as expressed during the sentencing hearing, are also included in the article, such as his response that he was unaware that the victims were minors.
5.11.

The fact that the criminal case concluded more than three years ago and he has since served his sentence could argue against publication of his first name, age, and profession (and thus in favor of respecting [claimant]’s privacy) is that it is possible to argue against the publication of his first name, age, and profession (and thus in favor of respecting [claimant]’s privacy). However, these circumstances, when weighed against the circumstances discussed (paragraphs 5.4 through 5.10) and the aforementioned assessment framework (paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2), do not outweigh the compelling public interest in publishing the article with [claimant]’s details, as NRC did.

iv. Consequences of the publication for [claimant]
5.12.

Finally, the harmful effect of publishing information that could identify [claimant] must be considered. According to [claimant], he experiences significant disruption as a result of the article’s publication, both in his private and professional life. He states that it is impossible to build a new life because he is regularly confronted with the article, and that this also applies to his family members. They too are affected by this. He also argues that he is being rejected from job applications because of the Article. During the oral hearing, [claimant] stated that he had not obtained a Certificate of Good Conduct (VOG), but that he had nevertheless found a job. He explained that his new employer has since dismissed him and that he is now unable to find employment anywhere else in his industry.
5.13.

While it is understandable that the Article can impact [claimant]’s life, this does not in itself make the Article unlawful. According to established case law, the right to protection of reputation cannot be invoked if the loss of reputation is a foreseeable consequence of one’s own conduct, such as committing a criminal offense. In this context, it is also relevant that NRC pointed out that [claimant]’s criminal case and conviction were also publicized in other publications, including the Brabants Dagblad. That article mentioned his first name, the initials of his last name, and his place of residence. Although his profession is not mentioned in that publication, it must be taken into account that the information in that publication about the conviction can also be traced back to him. Therefore, it is doubtful whether removing his first name, profession, and/or age from the article will have any effect. Moreover, the article is from several years ago and [claimant]’s industry, according to him, is relatively small, so it cannot be ruled out that the information disclosed in the article is already known within that industry. The fact that [claimant] suffers a disadvantage from the publication of the article is, due to all the foregoing, of less weight in the balancing of interests.

v. The balancing of interests
5.14.

Given all the circumstances mentioned and the weight attributed to them, publishing the limited additional information in this case, including [claimant]’s first name, age, and profession, is not disproportionate, even if it would make it easier to trace the article back to [claimant]. [Claimant]’s argument that NRC could have achieved its stated objective of informing the public about the criminal case without mentioning his name, age, and profession is therefore unsuccessful.

The conclusion is therefore that NRC’s right to freedom of expression outweighs [claimant]’s right to protection of honor, good name, and privacy in this case. Therefore, the publication of the article is not unlawful.

No violation of the GDPR/UGDPR
5.15.

[Claimant] further argues that NRC, by including in the Article a description of the criminal offense, the punishment, his first name, his age, and his profession, acted in violation of the GDPR and the General Data Protection Regulation Implementation Act (hereinafter: UAVG). It is undisputed that the Article processed [Claimant]’s personal data, specifically criminal law personal data within the meaning of the GDPR and UAVG. The parties disagree on whether NRC was permitted to process this (criminal law) data. The court concludes that this is indeed the case and that [Claimant]’s claim of violation of the GDPR/UAVG fails. In this context, the following is considered.
5.16.

Although [Claimant] states that NRC is the ‘processor’ of his personal data, the court understands [Claimant]’s argument to mean that he considers NRC, in relation to the Article, to be the ‘controller’ as referred to in Article 4(7) of the GDPR. The aforementioned article stipulates that the term “controller” means a natural or legal person, public authority, agency, or other body which, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data. NRC acknowledges that it is the controller, and the court also endorses this.
5.17.

[Plaintiff]’s appeal to the prohibition on processing criminal data as referred to in Article 10 of the GDPR is unsuccessful, because NRC’s appeal to the journalistic exception referred to in Article 43, paragraph 3 of the GDPR is successful.
5.18.

Article 10 of the GDPR provides, insofar as relevant here, that personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences may only be processed under the control of official authority or if processing is authorised by Union or Member State law providing appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of data subjects. Article 43 of the GDPR stipulates that most of the GDPR and parts of it do not apply, insofar as relevant here, to the processing of personal data for solely journalistic purposes. Paragraph 3 explicitly states that this also applies to Article 10 of the GDPR. “Journalistic activities” exist if the sole purpose of such processing is to disclose information, opinions, or ideas to the public, regardless of the medium of transmission. It is up to the national court to assess whether this is the case. The term “journalism” must be interpreted broadly to take into account the importance of freedom of expression in every democratic society.4
5.19.

Taking into account the foregoing, the court agrees with NRC that the article can be considered a journalistic activity. NRC pointed out that its website intended to inform the public about the type of crime that does not automatically make the front page, but which is of public interest, partly because the consequences for the victims can be significant. The Article is consistent with this objective, as it contains a factual account of the course of the criminal hearing and the subsequent judgment of the Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court. Therefore, the processing of personal data is solely for journalistic purposes.
5.20.

According to [claimant], it is not necessary to process his criminal record data and therefore the exception referred to in Article 43, paragraph 3, GDPR does not apply, but this argument is invalid. Based on established case law, the requirement of necessity requires a balanced consideration of the fundamental rights already assessed above: the right to respect for [claimant]’s privacy and the right to freedom of expression of NRC.5 This consideration is the same as discussed above in paragraphs 5.3 through 5.14. This means that NRC’s freedom of expression carries more weight, and the infringement of [claimant]’s right to privacy is deemed necessary. [Plaintiff]’s assertion that NRC, although it only stated facts in the article, only intended to portray and maintain [Plaintiff] in a bad light, is not supported by the article or the rest of the file and is therefore insufficiently substantiated.
5.21.

The foregoing means that NRC’s reliance on the journalistic exception under Article 43 GDPR is successful. [Plaintiff]’s reliance on Article 10 GDPR, which states that his criminal law personal data may not be processed, is therefore unfounded.
5.22.

The [Plaintiff]’s reference to Article 6, paragraph 1, subparagraph f GDPR, which article is not excluded by the journalistic exception under Article 43 GDPR, also does not lead to a different result. This article stipulates that the processing of personal data is permitted if it is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests of the controller (in this case: NRC), unless, in short, the data subject’s right to privacy outweighs this. However, the same consideration has already been made above under 5.14: [claimant]’s first name, age, and profession may be stated because this is necessary for NRC to exercise its right to freedom of expression, including freedom of the press.

Conclusion
5.23.

In view of all the foregoing, [claimant]’s claims will be dismissed.

Legal costs
5.24.

[claimant] has been unsuccessful and must therefore pay the legal costs (including additional costs). NRC’s legal costs are estimated at:

– court fees

€

688.00

– attorney’s fees

€

1,228.00

(2 points × €614.00)

– additional costs

€

178.00

(plus the increase as stated in the decision)

Total

€

2,094.00

5.25.

The statutory interest claimed on the legal costs will be awarded as stated in the decision.

Provisionally Enforceable
5.26.

The award of legal costs, including the award of statutory interest, is declared provisionally enforceable. This means that the award must also be executed if an appeal is filed against this judgment and as long as no other decision is made.
6 The Decision

The Court
6.1.

dismisses [plaintiff]’s claims,
6.2.

orders [plaintiff] to pay legal costs of €2,094.00, to be paid within fourteen days of notice to that effect, plus €92.00 plus the costs of service if [plaintiff] does not comply with the awards in a timely manner and the judgment is subsequently served,
6.3.

orders [plaintiff] to pay the statutory interest referred to in Article 6:119 of the Dutch Civil Code on the legal costs if these are not paid within fourteen days of notice to that effect,
6.4.

Declares this judgment provisionally enforceable with regard to the decisions referred to in 6.2 and 6.3.

This judgment was rendered by Judge A.J. Scheijde, assisted by Clerk V.W. de Leeuw, and pronounced in open court on December 17, 2025.
</pre>

FTC to Host Virtual Workshop on January 28 on Age Verification Technologies

Cass.Civ. – 32283/2025