CNPD
COMMISSION
NATIONALE
POUR LA
PROTECTION
DES DONNEES
Deliberation No 82_RECL63_2025 of 26 September 2025 of the National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on complaint file No 5.866 lodged against the company [REDACTED] via IMI Article 61 procedure 153703
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: 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 Spain submitted to the National Data Protection Commission (hereinafter: "the CNPD") a complaint (national reference of the concerned authority: E_07618_2020) via IMI in accordance with Article 61 procedure - 153703.
2. The complaint was lodged against the controller [REDACTED] (hereafter [REDACTED] or "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 that several times in June 2020, the complainant was delivered products by a deliveryman not wearing a mask during the Covid pandemic and that after these deliveries, he submitted a review to [REDACTED] criticising the deliveryman's failure to wear a mask. After this submission, the complainant received a written [REDACTED] message to his personal phone number by the deliveryman himself. In this [REDACTED] message, the deliveryman told him that after the submission of the complainant's bad review he received a phone call from [REDACTED] central station informing him that he (the deliveryman) would be
1
CNPD
COMMISSION
NATIONALE
POUR LA
PROTECTION
DES DONNEES
Deliberation No 82_RECL63_2025 of 26 September 2025 of the National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on complaint file No 5.866 lodged against the company [REDACTED] via IMI Article 61 procedure 153703
suspended from work for two days, without receiving salary. According to the deliveryman, it was [REDACTED] that provided him with the information about who submitted the bad review, alongside with the complainant's phone number.
4. In essence, the complainant asks the CNPD to check on the lawfulness of the processing, in particular by investigating on the reasons why or if [REDACTED] communicated his personal data to a third party.
5. The complaint is therefore mainly based on Articles 5 and 6 GDPR.
On the basis of this complaint and in accordance with Article 57(1)(f) GDPR, the CNPD requested [REDACTED] 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 reasons why [REDACTED] would have communicated his personal data to a third party.
6. The CNPD received the requested information within the deadlines set.
## II. In law
### 1. Applicable legal provisions
7. 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."
8. Article 5(1)(a) GDPR stipulates that personal data shall be "processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject ('lawfulness, fairness and transparency')". Article 6(1) GDPR specifies the conditions for the lawfulness of processing.
9. Article 5(1)(b) GDPR sets out that personal data shall be "collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes; further processing for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes shall, in accordance with Article 89(1), not be considered to be incompatible with the initial purposes ('purpose limitation')";
2
CNPD
COMMISSION
NATIONALE
POUR LA
PROTECTION
DES DONNEES
Deliberation No 82_RECL63_2025 of 26 September 2025 of the National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on complaint file No 5.866 lodged against the company [REDACTED] via IMI Article 61 procedure 153703
10. Article 5(1)(f) stipulates that “personal data shall be [...] processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate technical or organisational measures (‘integrity and confidentiality’)”.
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:
- In breach of [REDACTED] policies, the service provider [NAME] shared the details of the bad review and other information with the deliveryman who was able to identify the complainant based on such information.
- The delivery man probably got hold of the complainant’s phone number via his answering machine (as the number is typically read out loud by the answering machines in Spain). He was able to call him in the first place (without seeing his number) since these deliverymen use an [REDACTED] app to call clients when they cannot deliver a package in the absence of the customer.
3
CNPD
COMMISSION
NATIONALE
POUR LA
PROTECTION
DES DONNEES
Deliberation No 82_RECL63_2025 of 26 September 2025 of the National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on complaint file No 5.866 lodged against the company [REDACTED] via IMI Article 61 procedure 153703
- [REDACTED] explained the situation to the complainant and apologized.
- The service provider [NAME] informed [REDACTED] that they had taken appropriate measures against the deliveryman.
- In order to prevent the incident from happening again, [REDACTED] has created a new standardized process to ensure that no tracking ID, address or customer personal data is shared with the service provider in the event of customer complaints (i.e. bad reviews).
- [REDACTED] reminded the service provider of the importance of keeping personal data confidential and secure as well as of the need to comply with [REDACTED] privacy policies and appropriately train their deliverymen.
- Finally, at no point in time did [REDACTED] provide the deliveryman with the personal data of the customer
### 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 demonstrated the lawfulness of the processing and taken appropriate measures to remedy to the situation.
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 Spain, pursuant to Article 60(1), whether it agreed to close the case. The Supervisory Authority of Spain has responded affirmatively, so that 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:
4
CNPD
COMMISSION
NATIONALE
POUR LA
PROTECTION
DES DONNEES
Deliberation No 82_RECL63_2025 of 26 September 2025 of the National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on complaint file No 5.866 lodged against the company [REDACTED] via IMI Article 61 procedure 153703
- To close the complaint file 5.866 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 26 September 2025
The National Data Protection Commission
Chair
Commissioner
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.
5