In the matter of the General Data Protection Regulation
DPC Complaint Reference:
IMI Number:
In the matter of a complaint, lodged by with the Hellenic Data Protection Authority
pursuant to Article 77 of the General Data Protection Regulation, concerning MTCH Technology
Services Limited
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 EDPB Guidelines 06/2022 on the practical implementation of
amicable settlements Version 2.0 (adopted on 12 May 2022)
RECORD OF AMICABLE RESOLUTION FOR THE
PURPOSE OF EDPB GUIDELINES 06/2022 ON THE
PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF AMICABLE
SETTLEMENTS VERSION 2.0 (ADOPTED ON 12 MAY
2022)
Dated the 21st day of October 2022
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 24 April 2020, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to Article
77 GDPR with the Hellenic Data Protection Authority in Greece (“the Recipient SA”)
concerning MTCH Technology Services Limited (“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 20 October 2020.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. The Data Subject’s account was suspended by the Respondent. The Data Subject
subsequently submitted an erasure request to the Respondent under Article 17 GDPR,
as well as raising concerns with regards to the accessibility in finding channels of
contact to the DPO.
b. The Data Subject was dissatisfied with the response received from the Respondent
and believed that their request for erasure had not been fulfilled by the Respondent,
nor had their concerns with regards to accessing the DPO channels been properly
addressed.
c. As the Data Subject was not satisfied with the response received from the Respondent
regarding the concerns raised, the Data Subject lodged a complaint with their
supervisory authority.
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 Recipient SA, 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 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/her 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 EDPB Guidelines 06/2022 on the practical
implementation of amicable settlements Version 2.0, adopted on 12 May 2022 (“Document
06/2022”), 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 controller,
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 (via the Recipient SA) and Respondent in relation
to the subject matter of the complaint. Further to that engagement, it was established that
the Respondent had suspended the Data Subject’s account and following this suspension, it
had retained the Data Subject’s personal data. According to the Respondent, the retention of
this data was in line with the Respondent’s data retention policy. Following our engagement,
the Respondent agreed to take the following action:
a. The Respondent agreed to conduct a fresh review of the Data Subject’s ban. Following
this review, the Respondent made a decision to lift the ban. By lifting the ban, this
action provided the Data Subject with access to their account and the ability to self-
delete the account, should they still wish to do so.
b. The Respondent communicated the outcome of their review to the Data Subject.
8. Upon receipt of this information from the Respondent, the DPC wrote to the Data Subject via
the Recipient SA to inform them that the account ban had been lifted, and the Data Subject
could therefore proceed with the erasure of their account. In response to this letter, in
correspondence received by the DPC on 5 January 2022, the Data Subject indicated to the DPC
that his concerns remained with regards to the retention policies in place, and the accessibility
to the channels of contact to the DPO.
9. The DPC contacted the Respondent on 28 January 2022 in relation to the above concerns. In
response to this contact, in correspondence received by the DPC on 11 February 2022, the
Respondent provided information on its retention policies and information on the DPO
contact details as per its privacy policy.
3
10. On 13 April 2022, the DPC issued correspondence to the Recipient SA for onward transmission
to the Data Subject. This correspondence provided information to the Data Subject in respect
of the final element of their complaint, and addressed the concerns raised about the channels
of contact to the Respondent’s DPO, and its retention polices. This correspondence sought
the views of the Data Subject, as to whether their concerns were adequately addressed.
11. On 8 June 2022, the Recipient SA advised the DPC that a response had been received from the
Data Subject confirming that the issue had been resolved. A translated copy of the email from
the Data Subject, confirming their satisfaction was forwarded to the DPC on 15 June 2022.
Accordingly, the complaint has been deemed to have been amicably resolved.
12. On 25 July 2022 and in light of the foregoing, the DPC wrote to the Recipient SA noting that
the DPC considered the complaint to have been amicably resolved and withdrawn in
accordance with section 109(3) of the Act and that it would conclude the case and inform the
Respondent.
13. 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
14. For the purpose of Document 06/2022, 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 06/2022 the DPC has now closed off its file in
this matter.
15. If dissatisfied with the outcome recorded herein, the parties have the right to an effective
remedy by way of an application for judicial review, by the Irish High Court, of the process
applied by the DPC in the context of the within complaint.
4
Signed for and on behalf of the DPC:
_____________________________
Deputy Commissioner
Data Protection Commission
5