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 French 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 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 13th day of December 2022
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 9 December 2019, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to
Article 77 GDPR with the French 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 11 June 2020.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. The Data Subject submitted a delisting request pursuant to Article 17 GDPR to the
Respondent. The Data Subject sought to have one URL delisted from being returned
on a Bing search against their name.
b. The URL set out the remuneration the Data Subject was to be paid for their role as
Chief Commissioner and Director General of the Armed Forces Commissary.
c. The Data Subject was not satisfied with the response received from the Respondent.
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).
2
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 originally rejected the Data Subject’s delisting request as the information
was posted on an official government website. However, upon a further review the
Respondent confirmed that the URL which was the subject matter of the Data Subject’s
complaint now returns an error message when accessed. In the circumstances, the
Respondent took the following actions:
a. The Respondent provided the DPC with information on why the original request was
rejected and why the Respondent believed that it was of public interest not to delist
the request. The Respondent stated that the information was posted on an official
government website, which it considered to be of public interest.
b. The Respondent noted that the URL now returns as a 404 error message when
accessed and therefore it would delist the URL.
8. On 20 April 2022, the DPC outlined the Data Subject’s complaint to the Respondent, noting
that the Data Subject sought to have one URL delisted from being returned in a Bing search
against their name. The DPC outlined to the Respondent that the content of the URL related
to a French Ministry of Economy and Finance decision of 10 May 2017, which set out the
remuneration the Data Subject was to be paid for their role as Chief Commissioner and
Director General of the Armed Forces Commissary. The information was entered into the
official bulletin of the French Ministry, and consequently published on the URL at issue.
9. On 4 May 2022, the Respondent confirmed to the DPC that it had originally rejected the URL
as it related to information posted on a government website. However, following a further
review the Respondent confirmed that the URL in question now returned an error message
when accessed, and would therefore be delisted. The DPC subsequently conducted its own
Bing search against the Data Subject’s name on 5 May 2022, which showed that the URL that
was the subject matter of the complaint was no longer being returned. On 26 June 2022, the
3
DPC wrote to the Data Subject, via the Recipient SA, outlining the Respondent’s response. In
the circumstances, the DPC asked the Data Subject to notify it, within 2 months, if they were
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.
10. On 19 October 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.
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