Deliberation No 17/RECL10/2025 of 3 march 2025 of the
National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on
complaint file No 4.115 lodged against the company
via IMI Article 56 procedure 89356
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27
April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and
on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (hereinafter: the ‘GDPR’);
Having regard to the Act of 1 August 2018 on the organisation of the National Data Protection
Commission and the general data protection framework (hereinafter: the ‘Law of 1 August
2018’);
Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the National Data Protection Commission adopted by
Decision No 07AD/2024 of 23 February 2024 (hereinafter: the ‘ROP’);
Having regard to the Procedure for complaints before the National Data Protection Commission
adopted on 16 October 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complaint Procedure before the
CNPD’);
Having regard to the following:
I. Facts and procedure
1. In the framework of the European cooperation, as provided for in Chapter VII of
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the
processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing
Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR), the
Supervisory Authority of Bavaria (Germany) submitted to the National Data
Protection Commission (hereinafter: “the CNPD”) a complaint (national reference
of the concerned authority: LDA-1085.3-2728/19-I) via IMI in accordance with
Article 56 procedure - 89356.
2. The complaint was lodged against the controller
(hereafter “ ”), who has its main establishment in Luxembourg. Under
Article 56 GDPR, the CNPD is therefore competent to act as the lead supervisory
authority.
3. The original IMI claim stated the following:
“The complainant wishes to exercise his right to data portability pursuant to Art. 20
GDPR but denies it. He wishes to transfer his customer profile to another
online bookseller, in order to get better book recommendations by the new
company.”
4. In essence, the complainant asks the CNPD to order the controller to comply with
the complainant’s data portability request.
1
Deliberation No 17/RECL10/2025 of 3 march 2025 of the
National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on
complaint file No 4.115 lodged against the company
via IMI Article 56 procedure 89356
5. The complaint is therefore based on Article 20 GDPR.
6. On the basis of this complaint and in accordance with Article 57(1)(f) GDPR, the
CNPD requested to take a position on the facts reported by the
complainant and to provide a detailed description of the issue relating to the
processing of the complainant’s personal data, in particular with regard to his right
to portability.
7. The CNPD received the requested information within the deadlines set.
II. In law
1. Applicable legal provisions
8. Article 77 GDPR provides that “without prejudice to any other administrative or
judicial remedy, every data subject shall have the right to lodge a complaint with
a supervisory authority, (...) if the data subject considers that the processing of
personal data relating to him or her infringes this Regulation.”
9. In accordance with Article 20 GDPR “The data subject shall have the right to
receive the personal data concerning him or her, which he or she has provided to
a controller, in a structured, commonly used and machine-readable format and
have the right to transmit those data to another controller without hindrance from
the controller to which the personal data have been provided (...)”;
10. Furthermore, in application of Article 12(2) GDPR ”the controller shall facilitate the
exercise of data subject rights under Articles 15 to 22”. Recital 59 GDPR
emphasises that “Modalities should be provided for facilitating the exercise of the
data subject's rights under this Regulation, including mechanisms to request and,
if applicable, obtain, free of charge, in particular, access to and rectification or
erasure of personal data and the exercise of the right to object. The controller
should also provide means for requests to be made electronically, especially
where personal data are processed by electronic means.”
11. Article 56(1) GDPR provides that “(…) the supervisory authority of the main
establishment or of the single establishment of the controller or processor shall be
competent to act as lead supervisory authority for the cross-border processing
carried out by that controller or processor in accordance with the procedure
provided in Article 60”;
2
Deliberation No 17/RECL10/2025 of 3 march 2025 of the
National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on
complaint file No 4.115 lodged against the company
via IMI Article 56 procedure 89356
12. According to Article 60(1) GDPR, "The lead supervisory authority shall cooperate
with the other supervisory authorities concerned in accordance with this Article in
an endeavour to reach consensus. The lead supervisory authority and the
supervisory authorities concerned shall exchange all relevant information with
each other”;
13. According to Article 60(3) GDPR, "The lead supervisory authority shall, without
delay, communicate the relevant information on the matter to the other
supervisory authorities concerned. It shall without delay submit a draft decision to
the other supervisory authorities concerned for their opinion and take due account
of their views”;
2. In the present case
14. Following the intervention of the Luxembourg supervisory authority, the controller
confirmed that it got into contact with the complainant to provide him with the data
he was seeking to reuse them.
3. Outcome of the case
15. The CNPD, in a plenary session, therefore considers that, at the end of the
investigation of the present complaint, the controller has taken appropriate
measures to grant the complainant’s right to data portability, in accordance with
Article 20 GDPR.
16. Thus, in the light of the foregoing, and the residual nature of the gravity of the
alleged facts and the degree of impact on fundamental rights and freedoms, it
does not appear necessary to continue to deal with that complaint. Moreover, the
CNPD is of the view that the issue has been resolved in a satisfactory manner.
17. The CNPD then consulted the supervisory authority of Bavaria (Germany),
pursuant to Article 60(1), whether it agreed to close the case. The Supervisory
Authority of Bavaria (Germany) has responded that the complainant has not given
any feedback, so that they assumed that he cross-border complaint could be
closed.
3
Deliberation No 17/RECL10/2025 of 3 march 2025 of the
National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on
complaint file No 4.115 lodged against the company
via IMI Article 56 procedure 89356
In light of the above developments, the National Data Protection Commission, in a
plenary session, after having deliberated, decides:
- To close the complaint file 4.115 upon completion of its investigation, in accordance
with the Complaints Procedure before the CNPD. As per Article 60(7) GDPR, the lead
supervisory authority shall adopt and notify the decision to the main establishment or
single establishment of the controller.
Belvaux, dated 3 March 2025
The National Data Protection Commission
Chair Commissioner Commissioner
Indication of remedies
This Administrative Decision may be the subject of an appeal for amendment within three months
of its notification. Such an action must be brought by the interested party before the administrative
court and must be brought by a lawyer at the Court of one of the Bar Associations.
4