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 Garante per la protezione dei dati
personali 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 5th day of September 2023
Data Protection Commission
21 Fitzwilliam Square South
Dublin 2, Ireland
1
Background
1. On 7 February 2022, (“the Data Subject”) lodged a complaint pursuant to Article
77 GDPR with the Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (“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 26 August 2022.
The Complaint
3. The details of the complaint were as follows:
a. The Data Subject submitted a request to the Respondent pursuant to Article 17 GDPR
for a large number of URLs that they wished to have delisted from being returned in
a search against their name. The content of these URLs related to a criminal conviction
handed down to the Data Subject on 11 July 2016. The Data Subject stated that this
conviction was declared extinguished in accordance with the relevant national law on
19 October 2021.
b. On 13 January 2022, the Respondent responded to the Data Subject explaining that it
could not delist the complained-of URLs, as it was not provided with sufficient
evidence to support the request. Furthermore, on 8 June 2022, the Respondent
explained that it had determined that the complained-of URLs were not eligible for
delisting, as they did not meet the criteria outlined by the Court of Justice of the
European Union.
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:
2
a. The relationship between the Data Subject and Respondent (being, in this case, an
individual identified in search results and the service provider responsible for
providing those search results); 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
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. On 7 March 2023, the DPC wrote to the Respondent
formally commencing its investigation and requesting that it address the concerns raised. The
DPC emphasised the Data Subject’s assertions (as set out in their complaint) that they were
not a public figure and that a significant length of time had passed since the conviction (which,
as noted, had now been extinguished).
8. In response, the Respondent explained to the DPC that it had reviewed the complaint and
conducted a reassessment of the original delisting request, notifying the Data Subject directly
of same. The Respondent explained that 19 of the URLs identified in the complaint were
eligible for delisting and that they had now been delisted. In addition, the Respondent
explained that 17 of the URLs identified in the complaint were not returned in a search against
the Data Subject’s name and as such, were not eligible for delisting. The Respondent also
explained that 2 further URLs identified in the complaint were not associated with the Data
Subject’s name, and therefore were not eligible for delisting.
9. Further, the Respondent explained that the complaint contained 13 URLs that had not
previously been submitted to it for adjudication. As such, the Respondent had not been
afforded the opportunity to consider these for delisting prior to being made aware of these in
the complaint. Nevertheless, in the interests of reaching an amicable resolution in relation to
the complaint, the Respondent had assessed these ‘net-new’ URLs and agreed to delist them
as set out above.
3
10. The DPC noted that all of the URLs identified in the complaint which were eligible for delisting
had now been delisted. On 25 April 2023, the DPC wrote to the Data Subject via the Recipient
SA explaining the Respondent’s actions in response to the complaint and proposing an
amicable resolution to the complaint on that basis. In the circumstances, the DPC asked the
Data Subject to notify it, within a specified timeframe, if they were not satisfied with the
outcome, so that the DPC could take further action. The Recipient SA confirmed that this letter
issued to the Data Subject on 19 May 2023. 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. On 30 June 2023, 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.
12. 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
13. 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.
14. 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:
_____________________________
4
Deputy Commissioner
Data Protection Commission
5