GDPR and UAVG Articles 40-43, Data-Subject Rights and Journalistic Exception

Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Arts. 12-23; UAVG, Arts. 40, 41, 43

A citation is an address, not a summary. The first part names the law; what follows narrows it to the exact section, article or paragraph.

What follows is LexLint's own research summary of this law, not legal advice.

In force since 25 May 2018.

A data subject rights rule binding public and private bodies.

As of 24 August 2026.

What it requires

Give a person in the Netherlands a path to obtain human intervention, express their view, and contest a decision made solely by automated processing that produces a legal or similarly significant effect on them, subject to UAVG Article 40's exceptions.
Expect most data-subject rights and controller duties to be disapplied where your processing is exclusively journalistic, academic, artistic, or literary under UAVG Article 43.

What this law does

Drafted with AI from the cited sources under the direction of UnGovr staff. UnGovr holds editorial responsibility for this page.

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Articles 12-23 apply directly: access, rectification, erasure, restriction, portability, objection, and Article 22 automated-decision rights. UAVG Article 40 gives GDPR Article 22 its own domestic exceptions (not to be confused with UAVG's own Article 22, the special-categories prohibition, a distinct provision under the same number).

UAVG Article 43, confirmed verbatim, is the significant national narrowing: for processing carried out exclusively for journalistic purposes or academic, artistic, or literary expression, most of GDPR Chapter III's data-subject rights and Chapters IV-VII do not apply, and Articles 9 and 10 are disapplied to the extent the processing serves those purposes.

When LexLint raises it

crawls_web
trains_models
deploys_chatbot
automated_outreach

Read the law

wetten.overheid.nl, UAVG Art. 43 (verbatim)

Every line above is drawn from the primary source linked here, read on the date shown. This is a research summary, not legal advice.

Back to the example · Lint your app