Deliberation No 19/RECL12/2025 of 3 March 2025 of the National
Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on
complaint file No 5.575 lodged against the company
via IMI Article 61 procedure 140988
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-1085.3-3927/20-I) via IMI in accordance with
Article 61 procedure - 140988.
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:
“Complainant wishes to delete his data. However, the company has not yet
complied with its request. The complainant received the message from
that his account was closed. This measure has been taken because (XXX) has
constantly requested refunds for numerous orders due to missing articles.
She then requested the company to delete her name, address, payment methods,
IPs, cookies, any metadata, UUID from her devices – except data required by law;
However, these should only be viewed by the authorities.
1
Deliberation No 19/RECL12/2025 of 3 March 2025 of the National
Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on
complaint file No 5.575 lodged against the company
via IMI Article 61 procedure 140988
As of 07.01.2020, (XXX) had not received any feedback on her request for
deletion, which is why she appealed against .”
4. In essence, the complainant asked the CNPD to request to close her
account and delete any related personal data.
5. The complaint is therefore based on Article 17 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 her
request for erasure. Moreover, the CNPD required to proceed to the
deletion of the complainant’s personal data as soon as possible, unless legal
reasons prevent the former from doing so.
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. Pursuant to Article 17 GDPR, a data subject may request the erasure of his or her
personal data and the controller must erase the data subject's personal data
without undue delay if one of the grounds provided for in Article 17 (1) GDPR
applies unless the controller can demonstrate that the processing falls within the
scope of one of the exceptions set out in Article 17 (3) GDPR.
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.”
2
Deliberation No 19/RECL12/2025 of 3 March 2025 of the National
Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on
complaint file No 5.575 lodged against the company
via IMI Article 61 procedure 140988
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:
• The customer account related to the account with the e-mail address
(XXX) was suspended in November 2019 due to suspected fraud arising
from the customer’s return related claims.
• As Ms. XXX’ customer account was associated with fraudulent activity,
some data relating to this customer account is retained to protect the
controller’s business from further fraudulent activity.
• That it contacted Ms. XXX on 3 August 2021 by e-mail to the address
(XXX) but had had received no response and that it reached out again to
the complainant to obtain a confirmation to proceed with the account
closure and data deletion.
3. Outcome of the case
3
Deliberation No 19/RECL12/2025 of 3 March 2025 of the National
Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on
complaint file No 5.575 lodged against the company
via IMI Article 61 procedure 140988
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 erasure, in accordance with Article
17 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 they could not reach the
complainant and that the complainant was no longer in contact with them. They
assumed therefore 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 5.575 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
4
Deliberation No 19/RECL12/2025 of 3 March 2025 of the National
Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on
complaint file No 5.575 lodged against the company
via IMI Article 61 procedure 140988
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.
5