In the matter of the General Data Protection Regulation
DPC Complaint Reference:
In the matter of a complaint, lodged by with the Bavarian Lander Office for Data
Protection Supervision (BayLDA) pursuant to Article 77 of the General Data Protection Regulation,
concerning
Record of Amicable Resolution of the complaint and its consequent withdrawal pursuant to
Section 109(3) of the Data Protection Act, 2018
Further to the requirements of Internal EDPB Document 06/2021 on the practical implementation
of amicable settlements (adopted on 18 November 2021)
RECORD OF AMICABLE RESOLUTION FOR THE
PURPOSE OF INTERNAL EDPB DOCUMENT 06/2021 ON
THE PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF AMICABLE
SETTLEMENTS, ADOPTED 18 NOVEMBER 2021
Dated the 22nd day of July 2022
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 13 August 2020, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to Article
77 GDPR with the Bavarian Lander Office for Data Protection Supervision (BayLDA) (“the
Recipient SA”) concerning (“the Respondent”).
2. In circumstances where the Data Protection Commission (“the DPC”) was deemed to be the
competent authority for the purpose of Article 56(1) GDPR the Recipient SA transferred the
complaint to the DPC on 11 March, 2021.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint to the Recipient SA were as follows:
a. The Data Subject alleged that the Respondent denies right to erasure stating that an
account can only be deleted using the self-service portal if security questions are
answered but these are no longer known to the Data Subject. The Data Subject stated
that there is no response to a request for deletion and that supporting documents
and written statements are refused.
b. The Data Subject provided further information to the Recipient SA on 5 October, 2020
stating that the situation at that time was that although the account could be deleted,
it appeared that personal data remained in the Respondent’s systems that are not
deleted. He stated that this related specifically to his email address and he insisted on
his right to have this data permanently removed from the Respondent’s systems.
Action taken by the DPC
4. The DPC, pursuant to Section 109(4) of the Data Protection Act, 2018 (“the 2018 Act”), is
required, as a preliminary matter, to assess the likelihood of the parties to the complaint
reaching, within a reasonable time, an amicable resolution of the subject-matter of the
complaint. Where the DPC considers that there is a reasonable likelihood of such an amicable
resolution being concluded between the parties, it is empowered, by Section 109(2) of the
2018 Act, to take such steps as it considers appropriate to arrange or facilitate such an
amicable resolution.
5. Following a preliminary examination of the material referred to it by the Data Subject, the DPC
considered that there was a reasonable likelihood of the parties concerned reaching, within a
reasonable time, an amicable resolution of the subject matter of the complaint. The DPC’s
experience is that complaints of this nature are particularly suitable for amicable resolution in
circumstances where there is an obvious solution to the dispute, if the respondent is willing
to engage in the process. In this regard, the DPC had regard to:
a. The relationship between the Data Subject and the Respondent (being, in this case,
an individual consumer and a service provider); and
2
b. The nature of the complaint (in this case, an unsuccessful attempt by the Data Subject
to exercise his data subject rights).
6. While not relevant to the assessment that the DPC is required to carry out pursuant to Section
109(4) of the 2018 Act, the DPC also had regard to Internal EDPB Document 06/2021 on the
practical implementation of amicable settlements, adopted on 18 November 2021
(“Document 06/2021”), and considered that:
a. the possible conclusion of the complaint by way of amicable resolution would not
hamper the ability of the supervisory authorities to maintain the high level of
protection that the GDPR seeks to create; and that
b. such a conclusion, in this case, would likely carry advantages for the Data Subject,
whose rights under the GDPR would be vindicated swiftly, as well as for the
Respondent, who would be provided the opportunity to bring its behaviour into
compliance with the GDPR.
Amicable Resolution
7. The DPC engaged with both the Data Subject and the Respondent in relation to the subject-
matter of the complaint. Further to that engagement, it was established that the Data
Subject’s concerns with regard to his deletion request had been resolved and that he
had received confirmation of the deletion of his on 16 September, 2020. With regard
to the retention of the Data Subject’s email address, the Respondent explained that this
concern derived from the deletion of his . It stated that in the case of the deletion of
an , it retains a one way hash of the user’s email address, which is stored with the
deletion event. This one way hashed value is retained to allow it to comply with its legal
obligations under Article 17(3)(b) of the GDPR, and in accordance with the overriding
legitimate interests which it has in continued processing of this information under Article
17(1)(c) of the GDPR. It stated that it requires this one way hashed value to demonstrate
compliance with the user’s request to delete their information under Article 17(1) of the
GDPR,
in accordance with the principle of accountability under Recital 74 of the GDPR. It
stated that if it did not retain this value, then it would have no evidence that it had complied
with the account deletion request if, for example, the DPC was to seek it.
8. On 11 August 2021 the DPC sent a letter to the Recipient SA for onward transmission to the
Data Subject. That letter was sent to the Data Subject by the Recipient SA on 16 August, 2021.
The letter informed the Data Subject of the outcome of DPC’s engagement with the
Respondent. It invited the Data Subject to submit his comments in relation to the information
3
provided to the DPC by the Respondent with regard to his complaint. It stated that if he had
any outstanding concerns in respect of the issues raised in his complaint to set those out in
order to assist the DPC in progressing the matter further on his behalf. In the circumstances,
the DPC asked the Data Subject to notify it, within two months, if he was not satisfied with
the outcome so that the DPC could take further action.
9. On 2 November, 2021 the Recipient SA advised the DPC that the Data Subject had not
responded. Accordingly, as the DPC did not receive any further communication from the Data
Subject, the complaint has been deemed to have been amicably resolved.
10. By letter dated 22 December, 2021 the DPC informed the Recipient SA that it considered the
complaint amicably resolved and withdrawn in accordance with section 109(3) of the Act.
11. In circumstances where the subject-matter of the complaint has been amicably resolved, in
full, the complaint, by virtue of Section 109(3) of the 2018 Act, is deemed to have been
withdrawn by the Data Subject.
Confirmation of Outcome
12. For the purpose of Document 06/2021, the DPC confirms that:
a. The complaint, in its entirety, has been amicably resolved between the parties
concerned;
b. The agreed resolution is such that the object of the complaint no longer exists; and
c. Having consulted with the supervisory authorities concerned on the information set
out above, as required by Document 06/2021, the DPC has now closed off its file in
this matter.
13. If dissatisfied with the outcome recorded herein, the parties have the right to an effective
remedy by way of an application for judicial review, before the Irish High Court, of the process
applied by the DPC in the context of the within complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the DPC:
4
Deputy Commissioner
Data Protection Commission
5