HRIF.EU sues Ministry of Finance over secret deal monitoring agreements.
Today, Feb. 11, 2025, Human Rights in Finance.EU (HRIF.EU) filed an urgent legal action launched against the Ministry of Finance. The reason is the repeated refusal - contrary to previous firm commitments - to disclose policy agreements with De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB) and the Dutch Banking Association (NVB) on transaction monitoring by banks.
Two fundamental issues are central. First, Finance refuses to move to a legitimate suspicious transaction reporting system. Second, confidential information reveals that Finance made a tolerance agreement with DNB and the banks to turn a blind eye to illegal, privacy-infringing joint transaction monitoring. HRIF.EU now demands urgent and full disclosure of these agreements.
Why is HRIF.EU demanding access to these policy documents?
Since 2022, DNB has recommended moving to a reporting system that reports only suspicious transactions (about 45,000 per year), instead of the current "dragnet" which includes 2 million unusual transactions annually. This uniquely Dutch system leads to massive privacy violations, inefficiencies and legally problematic situations.
"The Minister acknowledges that the system is stalled, but refuses to reform it. This is not only disproportionate, but also legally untenable," stated Simon Lelieveldt, president of HRIF.EU. "Since 2022, the Ministry has been deliberately ignoring DNB recommendations. The promise to parliament to look carefully at a quick transition is proving especially theatrical."
HRIF.EU has been pushing for that transition for some time behind the scenes but is not getting a hearing. We know that the documents that Finance has been withholding for over six months now will show that in 2022 the switch was almost a reality before, but then didn't happen at the last minute. Most importantly, that switch is simple and pragmatic to implement. "Precisely because these documents can confirm that, the ministry is keeping them hidden," said Lelieveldt.
HRIF.EU also requested policy papers on the large-scale monitoring of bank transactions by banks in the context of Transaction Monitoring Netherlands (TMNL). This was a company of five major banks that collected and analyzed data for three years without legal basis. It led to massive privacy violations. Despite repeated warnings from the Personal Data Authority (AP) about the illegality, Finance and DNB continued to support the banks in this.
For HRIF.EU, obtaining the WOO documents is of great importance. If it is clear that the Ministry of Finance and DNB knew behind the scenes in July 2023, based on the letter from the Personal Data Authority, that the monitoring could also not be made lawful by a law, this overturns the entire lawsuit HRIF.EU has against DNB over the fact that the DNB's continued toleration of the violation of Article 10 by five banks involved.. Both the admissibility and the procedural interest of the HRIF.EU Foundation are then definitively beyond dispute.
HRIF.EU has evidence that between 2021 and 2024 about 2 billion special personal data of individuals were processed. This includes payments showing religion, medical status, philosophy of life or political affiliation. Finance and DNB allegedly knowingly condoned this. Legally, this raises the question of whether these organizations - especially after July 2023 - together with the NVB could not also be considered co-perpetrators of the AVG violation. HRIF.EU is currently studying this.
Recently, by the way, it also became clear that the Personal Data Authority has been fooled by the banks. In an interview on Privacy Web, AP chairman Aleid Wolfsen stated:
"We were always told, but we never investigated, that in those transactions monitoring was indeed deployed, but particularly for companies. So not for personal data of citizens." There was also insufficient capacity to conduct an investigation, he contends.
This shows that banks gave incomplete and therefore incorrect information and that Finance and DNB allowed them to engage in joint monitoring that violated various laws.
HRIF.EU stresses in its preliminary injunction to the Court that Finance's refusal to disclose the policy documents violates important rules of European and international law. These are:
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: This convention guarantees in Article 19 the right of access to government information. By withholding information, the Ministry is impeding the exercise of these rights,
Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: This article guarantees due process. The lack of transparency and documentation hinders HRIF.EU in its legal efforts to prove DNB's acquiescence,
The General Data Protection Regulation (AVG): The processing of billions of transactions and 2 billion special personal data without a lawful basis is prohibited if there is no law allowing it. Finance knew about this as early as April 2021, was able to prevent it, but allowed the monitoring to continue anyway.
HRIF.EU asks that the court order Finance to make the documents public by the end of March 2025. This is essential for public debate and legal proceedings. In addition, HRIF.EU asks for a heavy penalty payment for every day that Finance is later than results from the Court's order and ruling.
"The key question is whether the Ministry of Finance respects human rights," said Simon Lelieveldt. "Did Finance, together with DNB and the NVB, facilitate the banking dragnet? Is it deliberately going against DNB's own advice? And was our WOO request stopped because of the parliamentary debate in January?"
We hope our injunction will convince the court that the public has a right to this information and that the Ministry owes it to its standing to cooperate fully in this regard. After all, a much larger future with AI-driven monitoring and analysis awaits us. Transparency of this information is crucial to understanding whether the Ministry of Finance and DNB can seriously be trusted as guardians of human rights.
Simon Lelieveldt: 'The papers will make it clear later. Are Finance and DNB as organs of the state looking after our human rights or is all this just lip service for the stage?'
You understand that we too are extremely curious to see what we will read soon! But first we have to wait and see what the Court rules. A date for the hearing is not yet known.
PS. The appeal has since been registered under number AMS25/980 and the preliminary injunction under AMS25/979.
