Danique Knibbeler

Portrait of Danique
Danique Knibbeler specialises in the field of data protection law, and is a member of the Benelux Data Protection Team and the Technology Group. She advises both national and international clients on a variety of data protection matters, such as privacy governance (privacy policies, record of processing activities, privacy statements and procedures), privacy legal analyses, data protection impact assessments and international data transfers.
Read more

She graduated from Maastricht University, where she obtained a bachelor degree in Dutch Law in 2015 and a master degree in Dutch Law (cum laude) in 2017.

After graduation, she worked for several years as an in-house counsel and data protection officer in several local government organisations, a health insurance company and as a global privacy officer in a high-tech international company where she also advices on data protection regulations outside the European Union.

Other information

She has successfully completed the courses privacy officer in 2018 (Outvie), certified data protection officer in 2019 (Outvie) and the post-academic Grotius specialisation course Privacy law (cum laude) in 2021.

Danique is admitted to the Amsterdam Bar and a member of the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), Vereniging Privacyrecht (VPR), the Jonge Privacy Advocaten Nederland (JPAN), the Nederlandse Vereniging voor Informatietechnologie en Recht (NVvIR) and is also a member of the Nederlands Juristen Comité voor de Mensenrechten (Dutch Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights).

  • Publications & media

    This article looks at recent legal developments in relation to collective redress for breaches of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In particular, it examines the interpretation of Article 80 of the GDPR, which allows interest groups to act on behalf of data subjects. The article analyses the historical context and explanation of this article, as well as its relationship with the Directive on representative actions. It also discusses the implications of recent litigation, including that against TikTok. The authors argue that the European legislator has deliberately avoided allowing collective damages without a mandate in order to prevent a potential culture of litigation. The conclusions of the Amsterdam court in the TikTok case are questioned, and the article anticipates further rulings that will hopefully provide more clarity on this complicated legal issue. Read the full article for in-depth analysis and updates on ongoing cases (in Dutch).

Cookie notification

This functionality uses third-party cookies. Change your cookie preferences to view this content or view more information.
These cookies ensure that the website works properly. These cookies cannot be disabled.
These cookies can be placed by third parties, such as YouTube or Vimeo.
By deactivating categories, it is possible that related functionalities within the website may no longer work properly. It is always possible to change your preferences at a later time. View more information.