Amazon Road Transport Spain, S.L. – Court Ruling (Spain, 2026)

Unión General de Trabajadores (UGT), a trade union, lodged a complaint with the DPA (AEPD) against Amazon Road Transport Spain, S.L., the controller. Applicants wishing to work within the Amazon Flex delivery programme were required to provide a certificate confirming that they had no criminal record. The certificates and other application documents were processed by external processors responsible for the preliminary screening of candidates. The controller considered this requirement necessary to protect its customers and ensure the security of the programme. Delivery drivers transported packages directly to private residences and had access to customers’ addresses, telephone numbers and information that could reveal aspects of their habits. They could also be entrusted with packages of significant value. On 10 February 2022, the DPA imposed a €2 million fine on the controller for an infringement of Article 6(1), in conjunction with Article 10 GDPR, as well as [https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2018-16673 Articles 10] and [https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2018-16673 71 LOPDGDD]. The DPA considered that a certificate showing the absence of criminal convictions still constituted personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences. Consequently, it held that candidates’ consent could not legitimise the processing without a specific authorisation under Union or national law. The controller appealed the decision before the Audiencia Nacional, the appeal court. It argued that a certificate confirming the absence of criminal records did not fall within Article 10 GDPR and referred to previous cases in which the DPA had accepted similar requirements for certain professional activities. The Court granted the appeal and annulled the DPA’s decision and the €2 million fine. First, the Court held that Article 10 GDPR must be interpreted strictly, particularly in administrative sanctioning proceedings, which are governed by the principle of minimum intervention and the prohibition of extensive interpretations against the alleged infringer. The Court distinguished between processing information concerning existing criminal convictions or offences and processing a certificate confirming that the person has no criminal record. In its view, Article 10 GDPR expressly covers personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences, but not information concerning their absence. The Court considered that a negative criminal record certificate contains favourable information regarding a person’s conduct. Therefore, processing such a certificate does not amount to processing specially protected criminal-offence data under Article 10 GDPR. As a result, the consent provided by candidates was not invalid merely because no Union or national law specifically authorised the processing under that provision. The Court distinguished the case from situations involving direct access to criminal-record databases or the creation of files containing adverse information. It also distinguished previous employment-law judgments concerning employers requesting criminal records. Although requiring such certificates could be unlawful or abusive under employment law, this did not necessarily mean that the conduct was sanctionable under data protection law. Nevertheless, the Court clarified that processing negative criminal record certificates remained subject to the general GDPR requirements, particularly the principles under Article 5 GDPR and the need for a valid legal basis under Article 6(1) GDPR. In this regard, the Court found the controller’s reasons sufficient to consider the processing legitimate. Amazon Flex drivers delivered packages to private homes and had access to customers’ contact details and information capable of revealing their habits. The Court therefore accepted that verifying candidates’ good standing served the security of the recruitment process and the protection of customers. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the processing was legitimate, granted the controller’s appeal and annulled the DPA’s decision without awarding costs.