DPA case 162/2024 – Complaint Upheld (Belgium, 2024)
General GDPR enforcement action
This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
A Belgian media outlet faced a complaint for not promptly addressing a request to remove an article containing personal data. After a long delay, the article was finally removed, but the outlet failed to communicate effectively with the individual who requested its removal. This case underscores the need for timely responses to data removal requests.
What happened
A media outlet failed to respond adequately to a request for erasure of personal data from their website.
Who was affected
The individual whose personal data was included in the media article and who requested its removal.
What the authority found
The authority found that the media outlet did not comply with GDPR requirements for handling erasure requests in a timely manner.
Why this matters
This case serves as a reminder for companies to have clear processes in place for handling data removal requests. It emphasizes the importance of communication and compliance with GDPR timelines.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Secondary-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 18 October 2026.
Processing notes: articles corrected.
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
The controller published a press article, which contained the data subject’s personal data, on their website. On 13 July 2021, the data subject sent an erasure request to the controller. The request referred to the article concerned via a web link. The data subject received a confirmation of receipt on 4 September 2022, more than a year later. Then, no further response from the controller was received by the data subject. The data subject reiterated their request three times in January 2024 and made a mediation request to the DPA on 5 February 2024. The controller argued that the request was already granted and that the link no longer led to the article. The DPA transmitted the answer to the data subject in April 2024 and closed the mediation process on 7 May 2024. The data subject filed a complaint to the DPA on 23 May 2024 as the article remained available on the controller’s web site via another link. During the procedure, the controller erased the article of its website and apologised for the inconvenience, pointing out a technical mistake. The data subject declared themselves satisfied with the controller’s declaration. The DPA considered that the controller failed to inform and facilitate the data subject’s erasure request in accordance with Article 12(2) GDPR and Article 12(3) GDPR in relation to Article 17 GDPR. The DPA noticed that the controller should have erased the personal data following the erasure request and informed the data subject of any measure taken. Furthermore, the DPA pointed out that the controller may have breached Article 5 GDPR and Article 24 GDPR, stressing its obligation to implement technical and organizational measures to ensure compliance with the GDPR. The DPA took into consideration the time taken by the controller to answer the erasure request and the failure of the controller in deleting the article concerned. According to the DPA, those two factors highlighted the possibility of technical and organizational deficienc
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 162/2024 in BE
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 162/2024 - Belgium (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: