Erişim Talebinin Sonradan Karşılanması

EDPBI:LU:OSS:D:2025:1670 — LU SA final decision (Article 15 (Right of access by the data subject), Article 16 (Right to rectification))

Deliberation No 18/RECL11/2025 of 3 March 2025 of the National
Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on
complaint file No 4.619 lodged against the company
via IMI Article 61 procedure 105217

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-1085.3-15362/19-I) via IMI in accordance with
Article 61 procedure - 105217.

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 data subject states on 9.11.2019 that the Request for Access has not (not
correct, not completely) been fulfilled by . The request was sent via email
and the contact form on the website. The ds had to use the contact form
twice, because noticed that the ds email address changed.”

4. In essence, the complainant asks the CNPD to order the controller to comply with
the complainant’s access request.

5. The complaint is therefore based on Article 15 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
of access.
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 15 GDPR “The data subject shall have the right to
obtain from the controller confirmation as to whether or not personal data
concerning him or her are being processed, and, where that is the case, access
to the personal data and the following information (...)”;

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”;

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:

• On 30 September 2019, Mr. XXX submitted a data subject access request
(DSAR) via his account linked to the email address XXX1. On 30
September 2019 the controller’s response process was not yet automated
to the extent it is today, and, due to a human error, his confirmation email
was treated as a duplicate of his original submitted request. As a result,
Mr. XXX’s request was not transferred to the team responsible for
processing DSARs.
• Mr. XXX contacted the controller again about his request on 2 November
2019, this time from the e-mail address XXX2. The team receiving this
request noticed the error of not having processed his original request, but
also noted that the customer had contacted them from a different e-mail
address. Also, the customer account previously connected to the e-mail
address XXX1 was then connected to the e-mail address XXX2. In light
of these changes, the controller sought to verify that the requestor was
still the holder of the customer account that was the subject of the 30
September request, in order to ensure the disclosure of personal data to
the correct data subject. The controller therefore replied on 4 November
2019 to ask Mr. XXX to again use the contact form because of the
change of e-mail address. Mr. XXX responded that he had already used
the contact form.
• Out of completeness, the controller also noted that a new customer
account was created on 14 January 2020 connected to the e-mail
address XXX1, and Mr. XXX contacted the controller again on 30 March

2020 from the e-mail address XXX2 stating that he has still not received
his data. The controller treated the contact as a new data subject access
request and provided him with the link to its new DSAR Portal.
• Finally, the controller, has escalated Mr. XXX’s DSAR to the correct team
who have contacted him explaining that his case was reviewed again
following receipt of the CNPD letter. The controller then asked if he wants
a DSAR for both accounts or only the initial XXX1 connected account
(which in October/November 2019 was changed to link to the e-mail
address XXX2). The controller processed Mr. XXX’s request as a priority
and did not ask him to further verify his identity in this matter.

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 of access request, in accordance with
Article 15 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.

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 indicated
that the case is now closed for him. The CNPD has therefore concluded that no
further action was necessary and that the cross-border complaint could be closed.

In light of the above developments, the National Data Protection Commission, in a
plenary session, after having deliberated, decides:

- To close the complaint file 4.619 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.

Erişim Talebinin Sonradan Karşılanması

Türkçe özet

Hukuki mesele

Sonuç

Karar metni