Erişim ve Silme Taleplerinin Sonradan Karşılanması

EDPBI:LU:OSS:D:2025:1672 — LU SA final decision (Article 15 (Right of access by the data subject), Article 16 (Right to rectification))

Deliberation No 20/RECL13/2025 of 3 March 2025 of the National
Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on
complaint file No 6.344 lodged against the company
via IMI Article 61 procedure 174331

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-1085.3-10332/20-I) via IMI in accordance with
Article 61 procedure - 174331.

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 submits that he has already made several requests to the
company for the provision of access in accordance with Article 15 of the
GDPR as well as deletion of his personal data in accordance with Article 17 GDPR.
Up to now, the company has not complied with his rights.”

4. In essence, the complainant asks the CNPD to request to grant the
complainant’s right of access as well as his right to erasure.

5. The complaint is therefore based on Article 15 and 17 GDPR.

6. On the basis of this complaint and in accordance with Article 57(1)(f) GDPR, the
CNPD requested the controller 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 the right
of access and the right to erasure.

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. Pursuant to Article 15(4) GDPR, “The right to obtain a copy referred to in
paragraph 3 shall not adversely affect the rights and freedoms of others.”

11. 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.

12. 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.”

13. 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”;

14. 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”;

15. 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

16. 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 October 2019 due to suspected fraud arising from
the customer’s return related claims.
• In December 2019, the controller also responded to a separate request for
access to his personal data by sending him a password encrypted USB
stick.
• It sent a message to the complainant that reflected that it informed him
about the consequences of the account closure and therefore asked him
to confirm if he wished to proceed with closure following receipt of the
DSAR response.
• It reached out to the complainant again, asking him for a phone call to
authenticate, then subsequently provide him with a response to his DSAR

on a password protected USB stick, and subsequently process his request
for account closure and data deletion relating to the customer account with
the e-mail address (XXX).

3. Outcome of the case

17. 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 and right of erasure, in
accordance with Articles 15 and 17 GDPR.

18. 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.

19. 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 did not
contact them anymore and that 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 6.344 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 ve Silme Taleplerinin Sonradan Karşılanması

Türkçe özet

Hukuki mesele

Sonuç

Karar metni