CNPD
COMMISSION
NATIONALE
POUR LA
PROTECTION
DES DONNEES
Deliberation No 47_RECL38_2025 of 23 April 2025 of the National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on complaint file No 5.705 lodged against the company [REDACTED] via IMI Article 61 procedure 147674
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 Norway submitted to the National Data Protection Commission (hereinafter: "the CNPD") a complaint (national reference of the concerned authority: 19_02979-1) via IMI in accordance with Article 61 procedure - 147674.
2. The complaint was lodged against the controller [REDACTED] (hereafter "the controller"), 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:
- After that the complainant has requested the termination of his 6 months premium membership, the controller proposed the reduction of this membership to 1 month with no renewal, together with refund modalities in the context of that termination, on which the complainant agreed.
- Following that termination and the execution of the refund modalities, the complainant requested the erasure of his account.
1
CNPD
COMMISSION
NATIONALE
POUR LA
PROTECTION
DES DONNEES
Deliberation No 47_RECL38_2025 of 23 April 2025 of the National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on complaint file No 5.705 lodged against the company [REDACTED] via IMI Article 61 procedure 147674
- Despite these circumstances and request from the complainant, the account was not erased and the complainant still received payment reminder emails from the controller.
4. In essence, the complainant asked the CNPD to request the controller to close the complainant's 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 the controller to take a position on the facts reported by the complainant and in particular with regard to his request for erasure. Moreover, the CNPD required the controller to:
- proceed to the deletion of the complainant's personal data as soon as possible, unless legal reasons prevent the former from doing so.
- take position on the origin, nature and circumstances of the sending of emails to the complainant after the termination of his premium membership and the execution of an agreement on refund modalities in that context.
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) of the GDPR "the controller shall facilitate the exercise of data subject rights under Articles 15 to 22". Recital 59 of the GDPR emphasises that "Modalities should be provided for facilitating the
2
CNPD
COMMISSION
NATIONALE
POUR LA
PROTECTION
DES DONNEES
Deliberation No 47_RECL38_2025 of 23 April 2025 of the National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on complaint file No 5.705 lodged against the company [REDACTED] via IMI Article 61 procedure 147674
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 12(4) GDPR provides that "If the controller does not take action on the request of the data subject, the controller shall inform the data subject without delay and at the latest within one month of receipt of the request of the reasons for not taking action and on the possibility of lodging a complaint with a supervisory authority and seeking a judicial remedy."
12. 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";
13. 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";
14. 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
15. Following the intervention of the Luxembourg supervisory authority, the controller confirmed that:
- About the complainant's request for erasure:
there was a long and frequent exchange between the complainant and the controller. Unfortunately, the complainant's request for deletion of his data was missed by the employee concerned. There was no intention behind this, but in this case, it was a human error.
3
CNPD
COMMISSION
NATIONALE
POUR LA
PROTECTION
DES DONNEES
Deliberation No 47_RECL38_2025 of 23 April 2025 of the National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on complaint file No 5.705 lodged against the company [REDACTED] via IMI Article 61 procedure 147674
The controller has introduced automated processes on how and within which time a deletion request from customers and employees must be processed. These processes are always part of the employee training, with the result that they are known by the employees. The processes are also consistently checked for their effectiveness. In this case, unfortunately, there has been a human failure. As a result of the complaint, the customer service employees have been re-trained in data protection and reacquaint with the relevant processes.
The deletion was immediately initiated following the CNPD's intervention and the complainant was automatically informed by the system. The final deletion of all data took place a few days later.
- About the origin, nature and circumstances of the sending of emails to the complainant after the termination of his premium membership and the execution of an agreement on refund modalities in that context :
The complainant had bought a 6-month premium membership for 2376 NOK.
The controller has agreed with the complainant that the membership would be changed to a one-month membership without renewal and has accordingly transferred to the complainant an amount of 1980 NOK.
On the following day, the complainant respectively or the complainant's bank made a chargeback for the full amount of 2376 NOK. In these circumstances, the complainant not only received the original amount of 2367 NOK in his account, but also the amount of 1980 NOK transferred by the controller.
Therefore, the controller has sent payment reminders to the complainant, and these have been repeatedly emphasized in the communication with the complainant.
In this context the complainant's profile could not be deleted, as the case was not yet closed. The contact details were required to inform the complainant of the amount overpaid and to request the retransfer of the amount overpaid.
4
CNPD
COMMISSION
NATIONALE
POUR LA
PROTECTION
DES DONNEES
Deliberation No 47_RECL38_2025 of 23 April 2025 of the National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on complaint file No 5.705 lodged against the company [REDACTED] via IMI Article 61 procedure 147674
Once the case was closed, any data that did not need to be retained has automatically been deleted. The controller has implemented a corresponding deletion concept, which provides which data is automatically deleted and when.
# 3. Outcome of the case
16. 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 of the GDPR.
17. 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.
18. The CNPD then consulted the supervisory authority of Norway, pursuant to Article 60(1), whether it agreed to close the case. The Supervisory Authority of Norway 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 5.705 upon completion of its investigation, in accordance with the Complaints Procedure before the CNPD and after obtaining the agreement of the concerned supervisory authority. 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 23 April 2025
5
CNPD
COMMISSION
NATIONALE
POUR LA
PROTECTION
DES DONNEES
Deliberation No 47_RECL38_2025 of 23 April 2025 of the National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on complaint file No 5.705 lodged against the company [REDACTED] via IMI Article 61 procedure 147674
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.
6