Decision of the Market Court of Appeals Our remarks The Market Court of Appeals (the Market Court) • By issuing its largest fine to date, the Belgian annulled the decision of the Belgian DPA, including the DPA sent a strong signal to global organizations, fine of 600,000 EUR. Basing its arguments on national urging them to consider their data protection principles of administrative law, the Market Court found strategies in view of the GDPR. The case also that the decision of the DPA lacked proper motivation. demonstrates the Belgian DPA’s intentions In particular, the decision did not provide an adequate to challenge multinational entities on their or satisfactory explanation for directing the complaint intended company structures when these do and sanctions solely against Google Belgium SA, when not adequately align with reality. Google LLC was found to be the actual data controller responsible. • The case furthermore illustrates the approach taken by the Belgian DPA in striking a balance The Market Court highlighted that Google Belgium SA is between the privacy rights of public figures primarily responsible for Google’s marketing activities and the public’s right to access information in Belgium, and therefore is not involved in determining about them online. By finding that certain the means and purposes of data processing through articles related to the complainant’s political the Google search engine. affiliations could remain online, the Belgian DPA acknowledges the importance of public The Market Court also noted that the GDPR contains interest. However, the DPA emphasizes the need obligations only for data controllers and data to protect public figures from potential harm, processors. A subsidiary or local establishment engaged such as the repercussions from unfounded in other activities, such as Google Belgium, may only be harassment allegations. The case illustrates held accountable where its activities are indissociably the commitment of the Belgian DPA to carefully linked to the personal data processing carried out by weighing the competing interests of privacy and Google LLC. This link must be identified on a case-by- information access when addressing questions case basis and cannot be presumed or demonstrated relating to public figures. by referring to decisions from other national jurisdictions or courts of other EU member states. The Market Court • Finally, the Market Court’s decision in the appeal argued that the Belgian DPA may only pursue a local case has set a standard for the Belgian DPA establishment if there is clear, unambiguous, and non- when pursuing transnational companies in data contradictory evidence of an inextricable link between protection matters, highlighting the interplay the local establishment (Google Belgium SA) and the between European regulations and national data controller (Google LLC). procedural rules. The case is centered around a national provision regarding the adequate In sum, the Market Court did not replace its own motivation of administrative decisions, as judgement with that of the DPA. The disputed decision stated in the Act of 29 July 1991. In cases was overturned and referred back to the Belgian DPA, where administrative authorities have broad who must now make a new decision from scratch, discretionary power, and particularly when provided that a valid complaint is still pending. In its new the arguments of a party are dismissed, the decision, the DPA may impose a new fine on Google need for adequate motivations is particularly Belgium SA or even target other entities within the important, and must be based on clear and Google group, such as Google LLC or Google Ireland Ltd. concrete elements. 71