On charges of spying on Muslim communities: Fines imposed on ten Dutch local councils
The Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens) imposed a fine of 250,000 euros on ten municipalities in the Netherlands after it was found that they were secretly and illegally monitoring Muslim communities without the knowledge of the individuals involved.
The authority clarified that employees in these municipalities had included information about the political and religious orientations of individuals in their files, in clear violation of privacy rules. Some of this data was also shared with the NCTV (National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security) and the Ministry of Social Affairs.
The municipalities concerned are: Delft, Ede, Eindhoven, Haarlemmermeer, Hilversum, Huizen, Gooise Meren, Tilburg, Veenendaal, and Zoetermeer. These practices were revealed in 2021 after a journalistic investigation was published in the NRC newspaper, which sparked widespread controversy regarding the local authorities' treatment of Muslims in the Netherlands.
The head of the Privacy Protection Authority, Aleid Wolfson, said that individuals were "investigated without their knowledge," adding that "the reports included highly sensitive information about their religion and other personal data about them and their families." He confirmed that municipalities "had no legal basis for possessing this information," pointing out that "the privacy of these individuals was violated in the harshest possible way, which harmed their trust in local authorities." These practices came in the context of political and security pressures following terrorist attacks that occurred in European countries in 2015 and 2016, as the Dutch government and the NCTV unit urged municipalities to make more efforts to combat what they described as "extremism" and to prevent young people from joining ISIS.
According to the Privacy Protection Authority, the ten municipalities admitted that they exceeded the limits in their intelligence operations and acted effectively as 'private police forces', including details in their reports about family relationships, tensions among mosque officials, and collected detailed personal files on some individuals. The authority indicated that the value of the fine was based on the severity of the violations, taking into account mitigating factors such as the relatively short period during which these practices occurred, and the prevailing political and security pressures at that time. Wolfson stated that 'what these municipalities did caused significant harm to their relationship with the affected individuals', adding that the municipalities 'acknowledge that they were wrong and are now trying to rebuild trust'. He concluded that local officials 'were not sufficiently aware of their role and responsibilities at that time, and they admitted that they violated the law and are ready to pay the fine.'