Enforcing jurisdiction
Malta · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation
Privacy topics

DPA case CDP/IMI/LSA/17/2022 – Complaint Upheld (Malta, 2022)

Complaint Upheld
Information and Data Protection Commissioner28 February 2022Malta
final
Complaint Upheld

Privacy enforcement record

This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

The Information and Data Protection Commissioner in Malta upheld a complaint against an investment services provider for not properly handling a user's account closure request. This ruling highlights the importance of respecting user requests for data deletion.

What happened

A user requested to close their account and stop email notifications, but the provider insisted on a signed agreement before proceeding.

Who was affected

The user who wanted to close their account with the investment services provider.

What the authority found

The Commissioner found that the provider did not adequately comply with the user's request for data deletion.

Why this matters

This case underscores the need for companies to honor user requests for data deletion promptly and to avoid unnecessary barriers. It stresses the importance of user rights under data protection laws.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 56 GDPR
Art. 60 GDPR
Art. 6(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 12(1) GDPR
Art. 12(3) GDPR
Art. 17(1) GDPR
Art. 17(3) GDPR
Art. 57(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 58(2)(b) GDPR
Art. 58(2)(d) GDPR
Art. 77(1) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 12(1) GDPR
Art. 12(3) GDPR
Art. 17(1) GDPR
Art. 17(3) GDPR
Art. 56(GDPR)
Art. 60(GDPR)

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

National Law Articles
AI-identified
Art. 13(2) S.L. 373.01

Source checks

Secondary-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 18 October 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified.

Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The data subject requested an investment services provider (controller) to close his account and unsubscribe him from e-mail notifications. In subsequent e-mails, the controller asked the data subject to sign and return the subscription agreement, which had not been signed at the start of the subscription. The controller would close the account after the data subject signed the agreement. The data subject rejected this option and filed a complaint at the Spanish DPA which, in turn, transferred the case to the information and data protection commissioner of Malta (DPA) pursuant of Article 56 GDPR. Therefore, the LSA handled the complaint under of Article 60 GDPR and started an investigation. During the proceedings, the controller stated that it was subject to a yearly audit by an independent third party. Its processing of personal data was necessary to comply with this legal obligation. Therefore, it did not delete all the data. The controller also relied on Article 6(1)(c) GDPR for its processing. The controller also provided screenshots to prove that it closed the account of the data subject on 26 May 2020. Document containing personal data of third parties The DPA held that data subjects could only lodge complaints with a supervisory authority if the possible infringing processing concerned the data subject (Article 77(1) GDPR). This part of the complaint was dismissed since it only concerned personal data of third parties disclosed in the document. The data subject was not affected by this. However, the DPA reserved the right to start a separate investigation on this alleged data breach. The DPA proceeded to examine the erasure request and the timing of the request, pursuant of Article 57(1)(f) GDPR. Erasure request The DPA held that the controller must delete personal data without undue delay when a request is made pursuant of Article 17 GDPR. However, this is different when Article 17(3) GDPR applies, which describes that Article 17(1) and 17(2) do n

Outcome

Complaint Upheld

A data subject complaint that was upheld by the DPA.

Related Enforcement Actions (0)

No other enforcement actions found for DPA case CDP/IMI/LSA/17/2022 in MT

This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Decision Date

28 February 2022

Authority

Information and Data Protection Commissioner

GDPRhub ID

gdprhub-5384

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Automatically normalized and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case CDP/IMI/LSA/17/2022 - Malta (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: