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 Bavarian Data Protection Authority
pursuant to Article 77 of the General Data Protection Regulation, concerning Yahoo EMEA 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 12 MAY 2022
Dated the 18th day of November 2022
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 20 November 2020, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to
Article 77 GDPR with the Bavarian Data Protection Authority (“the Recipient SA”) concerning
Yahoo EMEA 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 12 January 2021.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. The Data Subject’s legal representative submitted a delisting request directly to the
Respondent, requesting the delisting of one URL.
b. The Data Subject’s legal representative received a response from the Respondent
stating that the URL had been approved for delisting. However, the Data Subject’s
legal representative indicated that the URL which was the subject matter of the
complaint was continuing to be returned against a search of the Data Subject’s name.
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 their 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
2
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 URL, which was the subject matter of the complaint was in fact a new URL not previously
submitted to the Respondent for delisting, but with similar content to the one previously
delisted. In the circumstances, the Respondent took the following action:
a. The Respondent delisted the new complained-of URL as requested by the Data
Subject; and
b. The Respondent confirmed that it had previously delisted a URL requested by the Data
Subject on 7 January 2022.
8. On 15 March 2022, the DPC outlined the Data Subject’s complaint to the Respondent. The
DPC noted the Data Subject’s legal representative asserted that they had made multiple
attempts to make a delisting request through the Respondent’s official channels, but
continuously encountered error messages on its website. The DPC also noted that although
the Respondent had previously agreed to delist the URL which was the subject matter of the
complaint, this URL was still appearing in search results for the Data Subject’s name on the
Respondent’s search engine. On 25 April 2022, the Respondent confirmed to the DPC that it
had now delisted the complained-of URL as requested by the Data Subject. The Respondent
pointed out that this was in fact a new URL requested for delisting, rather than the previously
received one, which the Respondent confirmed it had already delisted.
9. On 9 May 2022, the DPC wrote to the Data Subject via the Recipient SA, outlining the
information provided by the Respondent. In the circumstances, the DPC asked the Data
Subject to notify it, within two months, if they were not satisfied with the outcome, so that
the DPC could take further action. The DPC subsequently received correspondence from the
Data Subject via the Recipient SA, which indicated that their complaint had been amicably
resolved.
10. On 16 September 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
3
accordance with section 109(3) of the Act and that it would conclude the case and inform the
Respondent.
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 06/2022, 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.
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