Council of State: UWV did not need substantive physician review of rectification request
UWV, the controller, is the Dutch employee insurance agency.
Status Not cited by any decision here yet
Original title: RVS - 202406435/1/A3
Judgment·ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4930
Holding
The high court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court’s judgment. It recalled that Article 16 GDPR entitles a data subject to obtain the rectification or completion of personal data where those data are inaccurate or incomplete. However, the alleged inaccuracies must be capable of being established easily and objectively. The right to rectification is not intended to alter or remove impressions, opinions, research results or conclusions merely because the data subject disagrees with them. Nor does Article 16 GDPR provide a general right to supplement existing documents. In the present case, the disputed information formed part of an insurance physician’s record of what, according to that physician, had been discussed during the consultation. The data subject did not substantiate in concrete terms why that account was incorrect and acknowledged during the hearing that, due to the time that had elapsed, she could no longer remember the conversation precisely. The high court therefore considered that the disputed statements were not inaccuracies that could be objectively established for the purposes of Article 16 GDPR. Consequently, the controller was not required to rectify the report, and the lower court had correctly upheld the rejection of the rectification request.
From GDPRhub’s case note — a summary of the decision, not its own words. Read it in the text ↓
In February 2023, the data subject requested the rectification of a medical report drafted by an insurance physician in August 2012. She argued that the report inaccurately described statements allegedly made during a consultation, including information concerning her treatment, an upcoming medical appointment, contact with a personal coach and her employment. The controller rejected the request because it had not identified inaccuracies or omissions in the report. Instead, it added the rectification request to the medical file as a patient statement. In June 2023, the controller rejected the data subject’s objection and maintained its initial decision. A court dismissed the subsequent appeal. The data subject then appealed to the high court. She argued, in particular, that her rectification request should have been substantively assessed by an insurance physician under Article 10 of the controller’s internal objections regulation. She also relied on an earlier medical report which, in her view, demonstrated that the 2012 report contained inaccuracies.
Full text 7 paragraphs
Machine translation of the decision, via GDPRhub — not the official text. Read the original
ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4930 Instance Council of State Date of ruling August 26, 2026 Date of publication August 26, 2026 Case number 202406435/1/A3 Areas of Law Administrative Law Special Features Appeal Summary By decision of February 6, 2023, the Board of Directors of the Employee Insurance Agency (UWV) rejected a request for the rectification of personal data. [Appellant] submitted a request for rectification to amend a report by an insurance physician dated August 15, 2012. The UWV rejected the request for rectification because no inaccuracies or omissions were found in the report. The UWV added the request for correction to the medical file as a patient statement. By decision dated June 8, 2023, the UWV upheld its decision. The district court upheld that decision. [Appellant] argues, in essence, that her request for correction should have been assessed by an insurance physician. According to her, this follows from Article 10 of the UWV Regulations on the Handling of Objections 2022 (the Regulations). Furthermore, according to [the appellant], a medical report from 2011 shows that the report dated August 15, 2012, contains inaccuracies, which the court wrongly failed to recognize. References Rechtspraak.nl Annotated ruling Ruling 202406435/1/A3. Date of judgment: August 26, 2026 Section ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Judgment on the appeal filed by: [appellant], residing in [place of residence], appellant, against the judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated September 10, 2024, in Case No. 23/5228 in the proceedings between: [appellant] and the Board of Directors of the Employee Insurance Agency (UWV). Course of the Proceedings By decision of February 6, 2023, the UWV rejected a request for rectification of personal data. By decision of June 8, 2023, the UWV declared the objection filed by [Appellant] against that decision to be unfounded. In a judgment dated September 10, 2024 (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2024:15565), the district court declared the appeal filed by [Appellant] against that decision to be without merit. The [appellant] filed an appeal against this judgment. The [appellant] submitted additional documents. The Section heard the case at a hearing on June 3, 2026, at which [Appellant] and the UWV, represented by J. van Riet, Esq., appeared. Considerations Introduction 1. [Appellant] filed a request for correction to amend a report by an insurance physician dated August 15, 2012. According to her, the report contains an inaccurate account of what she discussed with the insurance physician, namely: - that she had been treated with Ritalin and feels very well; - that she has an appointment with a doctor for an evaluation; - that she has a personal coach with whom she speaks once every fourteen days; - that she could continue her work at CNV, which she finds calm and boring; - that she discussed these points with the insurance physician and agreed to them.
The UWV rejected the request for correction because no inaccuracies or omissions were found in the report. The UWV added the request for correction to the medical record as a patient statement. In a decision dated June 8, 2023, the UWV upheld its decision. The district court upheld that decision. Appeal 2. [Appellant] argues, in essence, that her request for correction should have been assessed by an insurance physician. According to her, this follows from Article 10 of the UWV Regulations on the Handling of Objections 2022 (the Regulations). Furthermore, according to [the appellant], a medical report from 2011 shows that the report dated August 15, 2012, contains inaccuracies, which the court wrongly failed to recognize. The appellant withdrew at the hearing the ground of appeal alleging that the court had wrongly ruled that the decisions of February 6, 2023, and June 8, 2023, were taken within the scope of authority. This ground therefore no longer requires discussion. Assessment of the Appeal 3. The grounds raised by [the appellant] in the appeal are virtually a repetition of what she argued in the original action. The court addressed those grounds in a reasoned manner. [Appellant] has not provided any reasons as to why the reasoned assessment of those grounds in the contested judgment would be incorrect or incomplete. The Section concurs with the court’s judgement and the considerations on which that judgement is based. The following is added to that.
Article 16 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) grants the data subject the right to have personal data rectified or supplemented if such data is inaccurate or incomplete. These inaccuracies must be easily and objectively ascertainable. Furthermore, the right to rectification is not intended to correct or remove impressions, opinions, research results, and conclusions with which the data subject cannot agree. See the ruling of the Section dated October 22, 2025, ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:5083. Nor does the right to rectification entail a right to supplement documents. See the ruling of the Section dated November 4, 2020, ECLI:NL:RVS:2020:2642.
At the hearing, it became apparent that the [appellant]’s main concern is that, in response to her request for rectification pursuant to the provisions of Article 10 of the Regulations, an insurance physician should have substantively assessed whether the medical aspects in the report of August 15, 2012, are correct. Under that article, the medical aspects of the objection are assessed by an insurance physician specializing in Objections and Appeals who was not involved in the preparation of the contested decision. However, in this case, the matter concerns a consultation report by an insurance physician, in which the physician recorded what, in his opinion, was discussed with—and stated by—[the appellant]. [The appellant] has not specifically contested this account of the consultation with substantiated grounds. At the hearing, [the appellant] also acknowledged that she can no longer remember this conversation precisely after so many years. This means that the meeting report is not eligible for correction, because the right to rectification is not intended to allow for the correction or removal of impressions, opinions, research findings, and conclusions with which the data subject cannot agree (see the ruling of Section dated October 22, 2025, referred to in section 3.1).
The foregoing means that the district court correctly reached the judgement that the UWV had rejected the request for rectification on valid grounds. Conclusion
The appeal is unfounded. The district court’s judgement must be affirmed.
The panel is not required to reimburse any litigation costs. Decision The Section of Administrative Law of the Council of State: affirms the contested decision. So decided by C.C.W. Lange, Esq., member of the single-judge panel, in the presence of S. Langeveld, Esq., clerk. signed Lange member of the single-judge panel signed Langeveld clerk Pronounced in open court on August 26, 2026 317-1146
How it connects
This case elsewhere
- Judgment Raad van State, 26-08-2026 (202406435/1/A3) NL