In the matter of the General Data Protection Regulation
DPC Complaint Reference:
IMI Complaint Reference Number:
In the matter of a complaint, lodged by with the Spanish Data Protection
Authority pursuant to Article 77 of the General Data Protection Regulation, concerning Microsoft
Ireland Operations 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 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 18th day of November 2022
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 23 May 2020, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to
Article 77 GDPR with the Spanish Data Protection Authority (“the Recipient SA”) concerning
Microsoft Ireland Operations 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 28 October 2020.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. The Data Subject submitted a delisting request to the Respondent in respect of a
number of URLs.
b. The Data Subject was not satisfied with the Respondent’s response.
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
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 Internal EDPB Document 06/2021 on the
practical implementation of amicable settlements, adopted on 18 November 2021
(“Document 06/2021”), and considered that:
2
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 initially declined to delist the requested URLs but that, following further
engagement with the DPC, it would now delist the URLs. In the circumstances, the Respondent
took the following action:
a. The Respondent delisted the requested URLs.
8. On 1 February 2021, the DPC outlined the Data Subject’s complaint to the Respondent. The
DPC noted that the Data Subject considered that the contents of the URLs were inaccurate.
The DPC also outlined that the Data Subject believed that the URLs were having a negative
impact on both their private and professional life. On 15 February 2021, the Respondent
informed the DPC that, at the time of its initial rejection of the Data Subject’s delisting request,
it had concluded that the Data Subject was currently involved in active litigation. As such, the
Respondent had refused the delisting of the URLs as the information was of public relevance.
However, the Respondent stated that it would be willing to re-evaluate its position and delist
the requested URLs if the litigation which the Data Subject was involved in was now
concluded, and if they submitted a new delisting request. The DPC subsequently wrote to the
Recipient SA, outlining the response of the Respondent.
9. The DPC subsequently received correspondence from the Recipient SA on 24 April 2021,
stating that, in its view, the Data Subject had already made a valid delisting request, and the
Respondent should not require them to submit another request. Furthermore, the Recipient
SA could not find any evidence online of the Data Subject being involved in active litigation,
nor did the Data Subject inform it at the time of their complaint that they were involved in
any litigation. Following further engagement with the Respondent, on 21 July 2021 the DPC
received confirmation from it that the complained-of URLs were no longer returning against
a search of the Data Subject’s name on Bing Spain.
10. On 8 September 2021, the DPC wrote to the Respondent, pointing out that the complained-
of URLs were still returning in a Bing search conducted by the DPC, and that the relevant case
law on the “right to be forgotten” had concluded that search engine operators are required
to remove all the links on all versions of its search engine in the EU, regardless of where the
request to delist originates in the EU. Following further engagement with the Respondent, it
confirmed to the DPC on 23 September 2021 that it was in the process of delisting the
3
complained-of URLs. On 4 October 2021, the DPC wrote to the Data Subject via the Recipient
SA, outlining the latest response received from the Respondent. The Recipient SA sent the
DPC’s letter to the Data Subject on 14 October 2021. In the circumstances, the DPC asked the
Data Subject to notify it, within two months if he/she was not satisfied with the outcome, so
that the DPC could take further action. The DPC did not receive any further communication
from the Data Subject and, accordingly, the complaint has been deemed to have been
amicably resolved.
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, by 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:
_____________________________
Deputy Commissioner
Data Protection Commission
4