Frank van der Linde vs. Europol
Timeline of milestones & procedures after having wrongfully been associated to terrorism by law enforcement in relation with his peaceful activism
Who is Europol: Europol is the law enforcement agency of the European Union. Europol’s mission is to support Member States in preventing and combating all forms of serious international and organised crime, cybercrime, and terrorism. To this end it facilitates the exchange of information and intelligence, provides analytical support, and offers specialised training and expertise to Member State law enforcement agencies. Put simply, Europol is a support function for national police agencies, rather than the EU police. That said, in 2026 Europol's powers will be reinforced, bringing it closer to an actual European police body.
As of 2024, more than 3.500 national competent authorities from 53 countries and 16 international organisations are connected to the SIENA, Europol system. They can exchange messages about individuals, and they have access to information on people, stored by Europol.
Looking for more details on this case, like articles and recorded talks? Here!
>>> Want to stay updated about this case? Reach ???? <<<
How to read this timeline?
National milestones on the left. Europol related milestones on the right.
(Comment from Lori: I am leaving this free because I understand the timeline will be shared once we hear from Europol in the CJEU context, right?)
<Review of 2022 decision of Europol's data protection regulator, the EDPS>
The EDPS awaits for the main Linde case against the police closes before closing its own review of its 09/2022 decision.
Filling of case against Europol before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
Europol is held accountable for illegally processing sensitive data of Frank. The activist filed a case against Europol before the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking compensation for his damage.
- Announcement of case by the law firm representing Frank.
- Court brief
[Terrorism]
Dutch police takes decision to correct information it sent internationally, associating Frank with terrorism
The police reached out to the German police and Europol with requests to rectify the label “Crime area Terrorism” in all of Frank’s personal data they might have, because label had no relation to the data subject, as he was never associated with terrorism
[Terrorism]
Court of Amsterdam orders (again) the police to not internationally associate Frank with terrorism
The police had two weeks to fix the situation with Germany and Europol, with a fine associated with each data of delay
[Terrorism]
Minister of Justice letter to Frank (again)
Minister confirms, again, to Frank that antiterrorism authorities (NCTV) should never have qualified him with 'extreme left', that his data should never have been shared with others agencies and that his GDPR rights were violated. Minimal compensation offered for the harm caused - conversation ongoing.
[Terrorism]
Court of Amsterdam annuls police decision refusing to remove association with terrorism
In its decision of 31/01/2023 the police refused to inform German police and Europol that Frank was never associated with terrorism, blaming the Europol data sharing form.
[Terrorism]
Dutch Data Protection Authority (DPA) Decision
The Dutch DPA found that the NCTV violated the GDPR by:
- Not informing Frank he was profiled; and
- Failing to demonstrate compliance with the GDPR
[Subject Access Request - SAR]
Court of Amsterdam finds systemic issues in how the police handled Frank's requests to access his file
The Court noted that there are structural deficiencies in the way the police processes personal data. Such deficiencies were in violation of the Dutch Police Data Act.
The Court appointed an independent forensic IT expert. This expert shall assess whether the police conducted its search adequately and explain the big differences between the amount of documents found initially and on appeal and whether this is caused by failings of the police. The Court ordered the police to grant the expert full access to the police data systems and files. This investigation is ongoing.
[Data sharing]
Court of Amsterdam Decision
Processing and sharing of Frank’s data by the NCTV was unlawful and violated the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
[Data sharing]
Dutch Ministry of Justice Decision
The NCTV should not have passed on Frank data to other national and International police & intelligence agencies. NCTV should not have qualified Frank as 'extreme left'.
[Terrorism]
Apologies from Mayor of Amsterdam to Frank
Letter on behalf of the Municipality stating Frank should never have been included in the anti-radicalisation register. “[T]he threat you were perceived to present was insufficiently supported by facts”.Municipality of Amsterdam acknowledged that Frank’s right of access to information on the processing of his personal data was violated as the Municipality failed to provide him his complete case file. Appointment of an expert to ensure Frank receives his entire case file.
Municipality of Amsterdam acknowledges harm caused to Frank and the structural shortcomings of its policy. Start of conversation on compensation for harm caused.
Dutch policeman whistleblows about how Frank is treated
Policeman denounced the bias against Frank and lost his job for speaking out
[Terrorism]
Dutch police refuses to remove Frank's association with terrorism in its messages to German police and Europol
The justification of the police to keep associating Frank to terrorism is the formatting of Europol's form to send messages to other countries (vie SIENA platform). The form only allows to select "Terrorism" in its "Crime Area" section
(This decision has now been annulled, because it was illegal)
[SAR]
EDPS opens & suspends review of 09/2022 decision, waiting for closure of case in Amsterdam
[SAR]
Frank & Europol request EDPS to review its decision
[SAR]
Decision of Europol Data Protection regulator, the EDPS
EDPS concludes:
- Deleted data of Frank after receiving his access request (SAR), potentially violating his data protection rights;
- Europol insufficiently motivated its decision to reject Frank’s SAR;
- Wrongly referred part of Frank’s request to the Dutch police;
- Failed to provide all relevant information.
[SAR]
Once again, Frank appeals the limited access he is getting to this police file
See unprecedented steps taken by the court on 16/04/2024, above
[SAR]
Court of Amsterdam rules that the access given to Linde to his Police file was too restrictive
Frank gets to see more. Yet, Frank's requests are still partially denied.
[Data sharing & terrorism]
Dutch police informs German Police & Europol: Frank no longer associated with extremism & no indication he poses any threat
This SIENA message was sent as a result of the Court of Amsterdam ruling of the 08/04/2021
The message is listed as "Crime Area: Terrorism"
Europol's Counter Terrorism unit is informed that Frank is no longer seen as associated with any extremism and does not pose threats
[Terrorism]
Court of Amsterdam orders the police to remove mentions of extremism related to Frank, in all police systems. Police refuses.
The police failed to justify to the Court why Frank should be qualified with terrorism, including leftwing terrorism. As a result the Court concluded that the refusal of the police unreasonable.
Frank complains about handling of SAR to Europol's data protection regulator, the EDPS
The EDPS investigation will take two years, with the result on 08/09/2022
Europol responds to SAR
After deleting most data, Europol responds: “[T]here are no data concerning you at Europol to which you are entitled to have access in accordance with Article 36 of the Europol Regulation”. Art. 36 means refusal necessary to enable Europol to fulfil its tasks properly. Europol did not give more reasons.
Data Rights comment: It is not normal for data protection professionals, especially in law enforcement, to wait until receiving a SAR to assess whether information on people is legally kept. Here is Politico's take.
Europol had data of Frank's Twitter account, but could not understand why (!). This data was deleted, but copies remained in the Europol systems for technical reasons (!).
Dutch police asks Europol to delete Frank data from terrorism database, to 'solve the problem' (his SAR)
Europol will action the request, but also has data beyond what had been received from the Dutch, which it will keep.
[SAR]
Frank goes to see his (partial) file at the Police
Frank appeals that he only gets to see the partial file.'Crime Area: Terrorism'
Frank discovers that the SIENA message to the German Police, shared with the Europol Counter Terrorism unit, was labelled “Crime Area: Terrorism”. Frank understands that the Dutch Police effectively informed foreign authorities he should be perceived as a terrorist threat.
It is noteworthy that the message about Frank pointed out there were no signs indicating he could be violent. The message noted Frank's activism against racism and discrimination and his complaints regarding death threats he received.
[SAR]
Answer to Subject Access Request (SAR) by Dutch Police
Frank is informed that his data was shared with the German Police as well as Europol. He is not given access to his file. To see the partial files he must go in person to the Police.Frank learns that his data was shared with Europol
[SAR]
Subject Access Request (SAR) by Frank to Dutch Police
Request of information on how his data was shared with foreign authorities.
This request was done after Frank received a Subject Access Request response from the Municipality of Amsterdam, where he discovered that his data was shared with the German Police.
Dutch police informs Germans Frank is not a person of interest anymore
SIENA message asking the German Police to ignore the message of the 29/05/2018Europol's Counter-Terrorism unit was not requested to cancel the message about Frank
Dutch Counter-Terrorism police unit associates Frank with terrorism
While Frank receives medical treatment in Berlin.
The message is sent via SIENA (Secure Information Exchange Network Application), Europol's communication tool to allow national Police units to communicate.
The message points out there is no reason to believe Frank could be violent.
Europol's Counter Terrorism unit is copied to the message and deems it relevant for its missions. Europol has the choice to keep or destroy the message. It chooses keep the data.
2017
Municipality of Amsterdam puts Frank in radicalisation register
Frank becomes a 'person of interest', despite repeated advice from Police and public prosecutor not to do so
National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism (NCTV) of the Netherlands profiles Frank as being associated with extremism
As a result, Frank's personal details are shared with national and international security and intelligence authorities. He becomes unlawfully associated with extremism.
This is presumably when Frank van der Linde's personal data was shared with Europol, via Europol's international messaging application, SIENA.
According to Europol, more than 3.500 national competent authorities from 53 countries and 16 international organisations are connected to the SIENA system. They can exchange messages about individuals, and they have access to information on people, stored by Europol.