CNPD
COMMISSION
NATIONALE
POUR LA
PROTECTION
DES DONNEES
Deliberation No 13_RECLEU8_2026 of 10 February 2026 of the National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on complaint file No 6.348 lodged against the company [REDACTED] via IMI Article 61 procedure 174382
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;
Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the National Data Protection Commission adopted by Decision No 07AD/2024 of 23 February 2024;
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-1085-15430/19-I) via IMI in accordance with Article 61 procedure - 174382.
2. The complaint was lodged against the controller [REDACTED] (hereinafter [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 the following:
“The complainant made an access request with the controller by email. The controller asks the complainant to use the contact form in the complainants [REDACTED] account for the access request. The complainant is unable to do this, because the [REDACTED] account was deleted.”
4. In essence, the complainant asks the CNPD to order the controller to comply with the complainant’s access request.
1
CNPD
COMMISSION
NATIONALE
POUR LA
PROTECTION
DES DONNEES
Deliberation No 13_RECLEU8_2026 of 10 February 2026 of the National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on complaint file No 6.348 lodged against the company [REDACTED] via IMI Article 61 procedure 174382
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 [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 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. Pursuant to Article 15(3) GDPR, "The controller shall provide a copy of the personal data undergoing processing. For any further copies requested by the data subject, the controller may charge a reasonable fee based on administrative costs. Where the data subject makes the request by electronic means, and unless otherwise requested by the data subject, the information shall be provided in a commonly used electronic form."
11. In the cases referred to in Article 11 (2) GDPR, where "the controller is able to demonstrate that it is not in a position to identify the data subject, the controller shall inform the data subject accordingly, if possible. In such cases, Articles 15 to 20 shall not apply except where the data subject, for the purpose of exercising his or her rights under those articles, provides additional information enabling his or her identification".
12. Recital 57 of the GDPR indicates that "If the personal data processed by a controller do not permit the controller to identify a natural person, the data controller should not be obliged to acquire additional information in order to identify
2
CNPD
COMMISSION
NATIONALE
POUR LA
PROTECTION
DES DONNEES
Deliberation No 13_RECLEU8_2026 of 10 February 2026 of the National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on complaint file No 6.348 lodged against the company [REDACTED] via IMI Article 61 procedure 174382
the data subject for the sole purpose of complying with any provision of this Regulation. However, the controller should not refuse to take additional information provided by the data subject in order to support the exercise of his or her rights. Identification should include the digital identification of a data subject, for example through authentication mechanism such as the same credentials, used by the data subject to log-in to the on-line service offered by the data controller".
13. 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."
14. 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";
15. 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";
16. 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
17. The intervention of the Luxembourg supervisory authority resulted in the following findings:
3
CNPD
COMMISSION
NATIONALE
POUR LA
PROTECTION
DES DONNEES
Deliberation No 13_RECLEU8_2026 of 10 February 2026 of the National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on complaint file No 6.348 lodged against the company [REDACTED] via IMI Article 61 procedure 174382
- The controller maintains that it must verify the identity of any individual making a DSAR to ensure the security of customer data, in line with Articles 12(6) and 32 GDPR.
- As the controller confirmed to the CNPD on 15 July 2022, it reached out to the complainant via email dated 20 May 2021, informing him that it had reopened the account linked to the email address [EMAIL], and that the complainant could log in to request DSAR via the self-service portal. Indeed, [REDACTED] customers can confirm their identity by simply logging into their customer account, as the use of account credentials is the most reliable method of verifying that they are the legitimate holder of the account in question. For customers who are unable or unwilling to access the DSAR self-service tool in their customer account, [REDACTED] also offers alternative methods of verification, e.g. by phone. The CNPD believes that such measures are appropriate and compliant with the obligations imposed on the controller under the GDPR.
- Following the CNPD's request dated 3 June 2022, [REDACTED] re-sent that communication to the complainant via email on 14 July 2022 and also sent a copy of this email by post to the address provided by the CNPD. The controller has attached copies of those communications for reference. [REDACTED] is not aware that the complainant ever responded, and they note that there is no longer an account that is active with this email address. The CNPD therefore concludes that the controller has expressed its willingness to resolve the matter at any time.
### 3. Outcome of the case
18. 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.
19. 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.
4
CNPD
COMMISSION
NATIONALE
POUR LA
PROTECTION
DES DONNEES
Deliberation No 13_RECLEU8_2026 of 10 February 2026 of the National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, on complaint file No 6.348 lodged against the company [REDACTED] via IMI Article 61 procedure 174382
In light of the above developments, the National Data Protection Commission, in a plenary session, after having deliberated, decides:
- To close the complaint file 6.348 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 10 February 2026
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