Legal Foundations of Fraud Registers in Personal Injury Law for Amsterdam

In Amsterdam, where personal injury claims often arise from busy traffic situations and urban accidents, fraud registers are based on various legal provisions, including the *Wet op de bijzondere medische verrichtingen* (Special Medical Procedures Act), the GDPR (Articles 6 and 9), and the *Wet fraudebestrijding* (Fraud Prevention Act). The GDPR requires a legal basis for data processing, such as the legitimate interest of insurers in the North Holland region. CIEL operates under agreements between the NVVK (Dutch Association of Insurers) and Amsterdam-based insurers, with strict privacy rules tailored to local personal injury practices. Inclusion in the register requires at least a reasonable suspicion of fraud, such as inconsistencies in medical reports following cycling accidents on the canals or repeated claims from Amsterdam postal codes within a short period. Evidence must be proportionate; mere suspicion is insufficient, as confirmed in cases before the District Court of Amsterdam. This court has emphasized in recent rulings that registers cannot justify automatic claim denials without due process, particularly in proceedings before the Amsterdam subdistrict court. The *Wet Bibob* (Public Administration (Probity Screening) Act) provides additional tools for risk signaling in suspicious claims from the city. For residents of Amsterdam, the right to erasure applies after five years, unless otherwise specified in agreements. Non-compliance may result in fines of up to €20 million or complaints to the Dutch Data Protection Authority (*Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens*). Local law firms in Amsterdam, such as those near the District Court, advise clients on defending against unlawful inclusion. Understanding these legal foundations helps Amsterdam residents navigate claims and avoid legal pitfalls in urban personal injury procedures.