DPA case CDP/COMP/583/2022 (asylum authority) – Order (Malta, 2023)

Order
Information and Data Protection Commissioner22 May 2023Malta
unknown
Order

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.

An asylum authority was ordered to correct marital information after refusing a supported rectification request. It could preserve the original declarations as historical records. No fine was imposed.

What happened

The complainant provided evidence correcting her spouse’s identity and civil-marriage date, after having given different information in her original application.

Who was affected

An anonymised asylum authority was the controller; the complainant was a beneficiary of subsidiary protection.

What the authority found

The Commissioner found an Article 16 infringement and ordered rectification and necessary internal measures within 20 days of receipt. Keeping the original historical application remained possible.

Why this matters

An accurate record of a past declaration does not remove the duty to update current information when a substantiated correction request is made.

GDPR Articles Cited
Automatically processed
Art. 16 GDPR
View original scraped data
Article 16 GDPR

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

Source checks

Secondary-source text retrieved.

Review needed — 18 October 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, source review conflict.

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

In CDP/COMP/583/2022, digitally signed on 22 May 2023, Malta’s Information and Data Protection Commissioner found that an anonymised asylum authority infringed Article 16 GDPR by refusing to rectify a beneficiary of subsidiary protection’s marital information. She had knowingly supplied a different spouse name for security reasons and a traditional-marriage date when applying in 2016, and later provided a public civil-marriage certificate supporting correction. The Commissioner distinguished an accurate historical record of what had originally been declared from the controller’s continuing duty to keep current data accurate and up to date, reading Article 16 with Articles 5(1)(d) and 5(2). Under Article 58(2)(c), the authority was ordered to rectify the record and take necessary internal measures without undue delay and within 20 days of receipt, then confirm compliance. It could retain the original information as an accurate historical account of the application. No administrative fine or general erasure of the historical record was ordered. The October 2023 PDF creation/upload timing is not the visible May 2023 signing date, and no later appeal or finality is established.

Outcome

Order

A binding order requiring the controller to take specific action.

Related Enforcement Actions (0)

No other enforcement actions found for DPA case CDP/COMP/583/2022 (asylum authority) in MT

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

Details

Order Date

22 May 2023

Authority

Information and Data Protection Commissioner

GDPRhub ID

gdprhub-6595

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/COMP/583/2022 (asylum authority) - Malta (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: