AEPD (Spain) - EXP202102433
From GDPRhub
| AEPD - EXP202102433 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Authority: | AEPD (Spain) |
| Jurisdiction: | Spain |
| Relevant Law: | Article 5(1)(f) GDPR |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Upheld |
| Started: | 07.08.2021 |
| Decided: | |
| Published: | |
| Fine: | 3.000 EUR |
| Parties: | n/a |
| National Case Number/Name: | EXP202102433 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | n/a |
| Appeal: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | Spanish |
| Original Source: | AEPD (in ES) |
| Initial Contributor: | Bernardo Armentano |
Spanish DPA found a violation of Articles 5(1)(f) and 32(1) GDPR and imposed a fine on the controller for sending an email to a list of recipients without using the hidden copy tool or obtaining the consent of the data subjects concerned.
English Summary
Facts
The data subject received an e-mail from the controller with the subject 'horror dinner'. Copied to the email, there was a list with the visible email addresses of several other recipients. In other words, the controller did not use the blind copying tool. The data subject took a screenshot and brought it to the attention of the Spanish DPA, filing a complaint. Upon consulting the website of the controller, the DPA found that the legal basis given for the processing of the personal data previously collected was its legitimate interest in offering products and services to its customers.
Holding
The Spanish DPA found that the controller, by sending an email to multiple recipients without using the hidden copy tool, breached the principle of integrity and confidentiality provided for by Article 5(1)(f) GDPR. In doing so, the controller gave access to the data subject's email address to a long list of recipients without having their consent to do so. The DPA stressed that the duty of confidentiality, which is complementary to the duty of professional secrecy, must be observed not only by controllers and processors of personal data, but by anyone who intervenes at any stage in the data processing process. Likewise, the DPA considered that sending an email to a large number of recipients without the use of a blind copy characterizes a security incident, to the extent that the controller failed to implement adequate technical and organizational measures to prevent the unauthorized acces to personal data by third parties, also violating Article 32(1) GDPR. In view of the above, the DPA imposed a fine of €3.000 for breach of Article 5(1)(f) and a further fine of €2.000 for breach of Article 32(1) GDPR
Comment
Share your comments here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the Spanish original. Please refer to the Spanish original for more details.
1/12
File No.: EXP202102433
RESOLUTION OF SANCTIONING PROCEDURE
Of the procedure instructed by the Spanish Agency for Data Protection and based on
to the following
BACKGROUND
FIRST: Ms. A.A.A. and D.B.B.B. (hereinafter the claiming party) dated
08/09/2021 filed a claim with the Spanish Data Protection Agency.
The claim is directed against D.C.C.C. with NIF ***NIF.1 (hereinafter the claimed).
The reasons on which the claim is based are the following: the claimants
They state that they received on 08/07/2021 messages from the address
***EMAIL.1 and the claimant in which the recipients do not appear "in blind carbon copies".
They provide:
- Screenshot of the email inbox in which
there are two emails from the defendant. For both the column
shows the subject “HORROR DINNER HORROR DINNER a
unforgettable experience starring a picturesque fam…”.
- Screenshot of the opening of an email subject "HORROR
DINNER” and date 08/07/2021 (3:37 hours); the content of the message is not observed
but it does partially list a plurality of recipients (email addresses
email) to whom the email would have been sent. As they state "in
The addresses don't end all over the screen, if I continue going down there would be even more
addresses, since there are more than 190 in total, as Hotmail tells me when
I open the email.”
- Screenshot of the opening of an email subject "HORROR
DINNER” and date 08/07/2021 (3:40 hours). The content is not observed in the capture
of the message but partially the list of a plurality of recipients
(email addresses) to whom the email would have been sent.
As they state "as before, in a single screenshot you do not see all the
addresses, if we continue going down, many more appear, until we reach almost 200”.
- Screenshot of opening a subject email “Re: HORROR
DINNER" and dated 08/07/2021 (8:21 a.m.) addressed to the claimant. The message warns
that you have not authorized to provide your data to other people and request that they remove you from
the mailing list to which you would have been placed without your permission.
- Screenshot of opening a subject email “Re: HORROR
DINNER" and dated 08/07/2021 (11:46 a.m.) addressed to the claimant
info@screamentertainment.es. The content of the message coincides with that mentioned in the
previous paragraph.
- Screenshot of the opening of an email subject “Ezin da bidali:
Re: HORROR DINNER” and dated 08/07/2021 (11:47 am) directed by “Microsoft
Outlook <postmaster@outlook.com>” in which (in Basque language) you are informed
that the email described in the previous point could not be delivered to
the address info@screamentertainment.es.
- Screenshot of the opening of an email subject "HORROR
DINNER” and date 08/07/2021 (5:42 hours). In the capture the content of the and the list of
C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es
28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 2/12
a plurality of recipients (email addresses) to which the
sent the email. The message advertises an event organized by the
claimed and refers the website ***URL.1.
- Screenshot of the opening of an email dated 07/08/2021
(6:42 hours) addressed to the defendant in which he requests the removal of his data from the
database.
SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of Organic Law 3/2018, of 5
December, Protection of Personal Data and guarantee of digital rights (in
forward LOPDGDD), on 10/01/2021 the claim was transferred to the
claimed, in accordance with the LPACAP, to proceed to its analysis and
inform this Agency within a month of the actions carried out to
adapt to the requirements set forth in the data protection regulations. Not included or provided
respondent's response.
THIRD: On 11/17/2021, in accordance with article 65 of the LOPDGDD,
The claim presented by the complaining party was admitted for processing.
FOURTH: The General Subdirectorate of Data Inspection proceeded to carry out
of previous investigative actions to clarify the facts in
matter, by virtue of the investigative powers granted to the authorities of
control in article 58.1 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Regulation of
Data Protection, hereinafter GDPR), and in accordance with the provisions of the
Title VII, Chapter I, Second Section, of the LOPDGDD, being aware of the
following extremes:
On 11/24/2021, the requested request was addressed to him requesting him to facilitate the
following information in relation to the facts investigated:
"1.- Reason for which the email attached to this request was sent without
blind copy, that is, showing the addresses of the rest of the recipients to all
they.
2.- Description of the procedure established for the submission of this type of
communications. Copy of the instructions addressed to the personnel in charge of its
shipment.
3.- Actions taken in order to minimize the adverse effects of this incident and
those adopted for their final resolution indicating the dates on which they have been executed.
4.- If applicable, reason why the security breach has not been notified to this
Agency.
5.- If applicable, information on the notification of the security breach to the
affected, indicating the means of referral and providing a copy of the notification sent.
6.- If applicable, information on whether other mailings have been produced
similar without blind copying of the recipients.
7.- Technical and organizational measures adopted to avoid, as far as possible, incidents
security as the one that happened.”
The requirement was delivered on 12/07/2021. expiration of the term
granted, there is no answer in the information systems of the AEPD.
C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es
28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 3/12
The request for information was addressed to the claimant at the postal address
***ADDRESS 1.
There is Diligence of the acting inspector with information collected from the internet in
relation to the defendant:
- The legal notice incorporated into the website ***URL.1 (referred to in the emails
object of claim) cites the following regarding the person responsible:
“Data about the person responsible for this website and the domain www.screamfarmgroup.com.
Company name is: Scream Farm Group CIF: ***NIF.1 Its registered office is in
Celler 6, Penthouse B, 07141 Marratxi, Palma de Mallorca.
[…] Email: info@screamentertainment.es
[…] Legitimation for data processing: The legal basis for the processing of your
data of the above purposes is the execution of the provision of the service
correspondent. The prospective offer of products and services to customers and users
is based on the satisfaction of the legitimate business interest consisting of being able to
offer our clients the contracting of other products or services and obtain
So your loyalty. Said legitimate interest is recognized by the applicable legal regulations
(General Data Protection Regulation), which expressly allows the
processing of personal data on that legal basis for marketing purposes
direct. However, we remind you that you have the right to oppose this treatment
of your data, being able to do so by any of the means described in this Policy.
The basis for sending commercial communications to non-customer users is the
consent that has been requested, and may be revoked at any time. The
Withdrawal of said consent will not affect in any case the execution of the
contract, but data processing for this purpose carried out previously does not
they will lose their legality due to the fact that the consent has been revoked.
[…] Contact In the event that any User has any questions about these
Legal conditions or any comments about our website, please go to
***EMAIL.2 or through the contact section.”
- The legal notice incorporated into the website ***URL.2/ that refers to information
analogous to that provided in the previous paragraph.
FIFTH: On 04/29/2022, the Director of the Spanish Agency for the Protection of
Datos agreed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the defendant, for the alleged
violation of articles 32.1 and 5.1.f) of the GDPR, typified in article 83.4.a) and
83.5.a) of the GDPR, with warning. Receipt by the claimant of the
agreement to start the file.
SIXTH: Notified of the initiation agreement, the claimant at the time of this
resolution has not submitted a written statement of allegations, so the following applies
indicated in article 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Procedure
Common Administrative Law of Public Administrations, which in its section f)
establishes that in the event of not making allegations within the period established on the
content of the initiation agreement, it may be considered a proposal for
resolution when it contains a precise pronouncement about the responsibility
accused, for which reason a Resolution is issued.
SEVENTH: Of the actions carried out in this procedure, have been
the following accredited:
C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es
28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 4/12
PROVEN FACTS
FIRST: On 08/09/2021 there is a written entry in the AEPD from the complaining party
stating that they have received emails on 08/07/2021
from the address ***EMAIL.1 and from the defendant in which the recipients do not
They are "blind copies".
SECOND: The complaining party has provided screenshots of the mailbox
e-mail entry containing e-mails from the
reclaimed
THIRD: The following information provided by the State Agency for
Tax Administration (AEAT), in relation to the data associated with NIF ***NIF.1
that appear in their databases: “C.C.C.” with tax domicile in
"***ADDRESS 1"
FOURTH: Proceedings of the acting inspector containing information
obtained from the internet related to the claimed:
- The legal notice incorporated into the ***URL.1 internet site, citing the following insofar as
to your manager:
“Data about the person responsible for this website and the domain www.screamfarmgroup.com.
Company name is: Scream Farm Group CIF: ***NIF.1 Its registered office is in
Celler 6, Penthouse B, 07141 Marratxi, Palma de Mallorca.
[…] Email: info@screamentertainment.es
[…] Legitimation for data processing: The legal basis for the processing of your
data of the above purposes is the execution of the provision of the service
correspondent. The prospective offer of products and services to customers and users
is based on the satisfaction of the legitimate business interest consisting of being able to
offer our clients the contracting of other products or services and obtain
So your loyalty. Said legitimate interest is recognized by the applicable legal regulations
(General Data Protection Regulation), which expressly allows the
processing of personal data on that legal basis for marketing purposes
direct. However, we remind you that you have the right to oppose this treatment
of your data, being able to do so by any of the means described in this Policy.
The basis for sending commercial communications to non-customer users is the
consent that has been requested, and may be revoked at any time. The
Withdrawal of said consent will not affect in any case the execution of the
contract, but data processing for this purpose carried out previously does not
they will lose their legality due to the fact that the consent has been revoked.
C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es
28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 5/12
[…] Contact In the event that any User has any questions about these
Legal conditions or any comments about our website, please go to
***EMAIL.2 or through the contact section.”
- The legal notice incorporated into the website ***URL.2 containing information
analogous to that provided in the previous paragraph.
FUNDAMENTALS OF LAW
Yo
In accordance with the powers that article 58.2 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679
(General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter GDPR), grants each
control authority and as established in articles 47, 48.1, 64.2 and 68.1 of the
Organic Law 3/2018, of December 5, Protection of Personal Data and
guarantee of digital rights (hereinafter, LOPDGDD), is competent to
initiate and resolve this procedure the Director of the Spanish Protection Agency
of data.
Likewise, article 63.2 of the LOPDGDD determines that: "The
procedures processed by the Spanish Data Protection Agency will be governed
by the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in this organic law, for the
regulatory provisions dictated in its development and, as soon as they are not
contradict, on a subsidiary basis, by the general rules on the
administrative procedures.”
II
The facts claimed materialize in the receipt of emails
from the address ***EMAIL.1 belonging to the defendant in which the
recipients are not "blind carbon copies".
Article 5 of the GDPR establishes the principles that must govern the treatment
of personal data and mentions among them that of "integrity and confidentiality".
The cited article states that:
"1. Personal data will be:
(…)
f) processed in such a way as to guarantee adequate security of the
personal data, including protection against unauthorized processing or
illicit and against its loss, destruction or accidental damage, through the application
of appropriate technical or organizational measures ("integrity and
confidentiality").
(…)
II
The documentation in the file offers clear indications that the
claimed, violated article 5 of the RGPD, principles related to treatment, by sending
C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es
28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 6/12
email without using the blind copy option violating confidentiality
in the processing of personal data. Thus, the claimant had
access to the email addresses of other recipients.
This duty of confidentiality must be understood as its purpose
prevent access to the data without the consent of the owners of the data
themselves.
Therefore, this duty of confidentiality is an obligation that incumbents not
only to the person in charge and in charge of the treatment but to everyone who intervenes in
any phase of the treatment and complementary to the duty of professional secrecy.
IV.
Article 83.5 a) of the GDPR, considers that the infringement of "the principles
principles for treatment, including the conditions for consent under
of articles 5, 6, 7 and 9” is punishable, in accordance with section 5 of the
mentioned Article 83 of the aforementioned Regulation, "with administrative fines of
€20,000,000 maximum or, in the case of a company, an equivalent amount
at a maximum of 4% of the overall annual total turnover of the financial year
above, opting for the one with the highest amount”.
The LOPDGDD in its article 71, Violations, states that: "They constitute
offenses the acts and behaviors referred to in sections 4, 5 and 6 of the
Article 83 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, as well as those that are contrary to the
present organic law”.
And in its article 72, it considers for the purposes of prescription, which are: "Infractions
considered very serious:
1. Based on what is established in article 83.5 of the Regulation (EU)
2016/679 are considered very serious and the infractions that
suppose a substantial violation of the articles mentioned in that and, in
particular, the following:
a) The processing of personal data in violation of the principles and guarantees
established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
(…)
V
Secondly, article 32 of the GDPR "Security of treatment",
states that:
"1. Taking into account the state of the art, the application costs, and the
nature, scope, context and purposes of processing, as well as risks of
variable probability and severity for the rights and freedoms of individuals
physical, the person in charge and the person in charge of the treatment will apply technical and
appropriate organizational measures to guarantee a level of security appropriate to the risk,
which may include, among others:
a) the pseudonymization and encryption of personal data;
C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es
28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 7/12
b) the ability to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, availability and
permanent resilience of treatment systems and services;
c) the ability to restore availability and access to data
quickly in the event of a physical or technical incident;
d) a process of regular verification, evaluation and assessment of effectiveness
technical and organizational measures to guarantee the safety of the
treatment.
2. When evaluating the adequacy of the level of security, particular attention should be paid to
take into account the risks presented by data processing, in particular as
consequence of the destruction, loss or accidental or illegal alteration of data
personal information transmitted, preserved or processed in another way, or the communication or
unauthorized access to such data.
3. Adherence to an approved code of conduct pursuant to article 40 or to a
certification mechanism approved under article 42 may serve as an element
to demonstrate compliance with the requirements established in section 1 of the
present article.
4. The person in charge and the person in charge of the treatment will take measures to
ensure that any person acting under the authority of the controller or the
manager and has access to personal data can only process such data
following the instructions of the person in charge, unless it is obliged to do so by virtue of the
Law of the Union or of the Member States”.
SAW
The violation of article 32 of the GDPR is typified in article
83.4.a) of the aforementioned GDPR in the following terms:
"4. Violations of the following provisions will be penalized, according to
with paragraph 2, with administrative fines of maximum EUR 10,000,000 or,
in the case of a company, an amount equivalent to a maximum of 2% of the
total annual global business volume of the previous financial year, opting for
the highest amount:
a) the obligations of the person in charge and the person in charge according to articles 8,
11, 25 to 39, 42 and 43.
(…)”
For its part, the LOPDGDD in its article 73, for prescription purposes, qualifies
of "Infringements considered serious":
"Based on what is established in article 83.4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679
are considered serious and will prescribe after two years the infractions that suppose a
substantial violation of the articles mentioned therein and, in particular, the
following:
(…)
f) The lack of adoption of those technical and organizational measures that
are appropriate to guarantee a level of security appropriate to the risk
C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es
28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 8/12
of the treatment, in the terms required by article 32.1 of the Regulation
(EU) 2016/679.
(…)”
VII
The GDPR defines breaches of personal data security as
“all those security violations that cause the destruction, loss or
accidental or illegal alteration of personal data transmitted, stored or processed
otherwise, or unauthorized disclosure of or access to such data.”
From the documentation in the file, there are clear indications of
that the defendant has violated article 32 of the GDPR, when an incident of
security when sending email to a large number of recipients without the
blind carbon copy function, without having adequate technical and organizational measures.
It should be noted that the GDPR in the aforementioned precept does not establish a list of
the security measures that are applicable according to the data that is
object of treatment, but it establishes that the person in charge and the person in charge of the
treatment will apply technical and organizational measures that are appropriate to the risk
that entails the treatment, taking into account the state of the art, the costs of
application, the nature, scope, context and purposes of the treatment, the risks of
probability and seriousness for the rights and freedoms of the persons concerned.
In addition, security measures must be adequate and
proportionate to the risk detected, noting that the determination of the measures
technical and organizational procedures must be carried out taking into account: pseudonymization and
encryption, the ability to ensure confidentiality, integrity, availability and
resiliency, the ability to restore availability and access to data after a
incident, verification process (not audit), evaluation and assessment of the
effectiveness of the measures.
In any case, when evaluating the adequacy of the security level,
particular account of the risks presented by data processing, such as
consequence of the destruction, loss or accidental or illegal alteration of data
personal information transmitted, preserved or processed in another way, or the communication or
unauthorized access to said data and that could cause damages
physical, material or immaterial.
In this sense, recital 83 of the GDPR states that:
"(83) In order to maintain security and prevent processing from infringing what
provided in this Regulation, the person in charge or in charge must evaluate
the risks inherent to the treatment and apply measures to mitigate them, such as the
encryption. These measures must ensure an adequate level of security, including the
confidentiality, taking into account the state of the art and the cost of its application
regarding the risks and nature of the personal data to be
protect yourself. When assessing risk in relation to data security, considerations should be
take into account the risks arising from the processing of personal data,
such as the destruction, loss or accidental or unlawful alteration of personal data
transmitted, stored or processed in another way, or communication or access not
C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es
28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 9/12
authorized to said data, susceptible in particular to cause damages
physical, material or immaterial.
The responsibility of the defendant is determined by the incident of
security evidenced by the claimant, since he is responsible for taking
decisions aimed at effectively implementing the technical and
appropriate organizational measures to guarantee a level of security appropriate to the risk
to ensure the confidentiality of the data, restoring its availability and preventing
access to them in the event of a physical or technical incident. However, from the
documentation provided shows that the entity has not only breached this
obligation, but also the adoption of measures in this regard is unknown,
despite having notified him of the claim presented.
Pursuant to the foregoing, it is estimated that the defendant would be
allegedly responsible for the infringement of article 32 of the GDPR, infringement
typified in its article 83.4.a).
VIII
In order to establish the administrative fine that should be imposed, the
observe the provisions contained in articles 83.1 and 83.2 of the GDPR, which
point out:
"1. Each control authority will guarantee that the imposition of fines
administrative proceedings under this article for violations of this
Regulations indicated in sections 4, 5 and 6 are in each individual case
effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
2. Administrative fines will be imposed, depending on the circumstances
of each individual case, as an addition to or substitute for the measures contemplated
in article 58, paragraph 2, letters a) to h) and j). When deciding to impose a fine
administration and its amount in each individual case shall be duly taken into account:
a) the nature, seriousness and duration of the offence, taking into account the
nature, scope or purpose of the processing operation in question
as well as the number of stakeholders affected and the level of damage and
damages they have suffered;
b) intentionality or negligence in the infraction;
c) any measure taken by the controller or processor
to alleviate the damages and losses suffered by the interested parties;
d) the degree of responsibility of the controller or the person in charge of the
processing, taking into account the technical or organizational measures that have
applied under articles 25 and 32;
e) any previous infringement committed by the person in charge or in charge of the
treatment;
f) the degree of cooperation with the supervisory authority in order to put
remedy the breach and mitigate the potential adverse effects of the breach;
g) the categories of personal data affected by the infringement;
h) the way in which the supervisory authority became aware of the infringement, in
particularly if the person in charge or the person in charge notified the infringement and, in such a case,
what extent;
C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es
28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 10/12
i) when the measures indicated in article 58, paragraph 2, have been
previously ordered against the person in charge or in charge in question
in relation to the same matter, compliance with said measures;
j) adherence to codes of conduct under article 40 or to mechanisms
of certification approved in accordance with article 42, and
k) any other aggravating or mitigating factor applicable to the circumstances of the
case, such as the financial benefits obtained or the losses avoided, direct
or indirectly, through the infringement.
In relation to letter k) of article 83.2 of the GDPR, the LOPDGDD, in its
Article 76, "Sanctions and corrective measures", establishes that:
"2. In accordance with the provisions of article 83.2.k) of the Regulation (EU)
2016/679 may also be taken into account:
a) The continuing nature of the offence.
b) Linking the activity of the offender with the performance of processing
of personal data.
c) The benefits obtained as a consequence of the commission of the infraction.
d) The possibility that the conduct of the affected party could have led to the
commission of the offence.
e) The existence of a merger process by absorption after the commission
of the infringement, which cannot be attributed to the absorbing entity.
f) The affectation of the rights of minors.
g) Have, when it is not mandatory, a data protection delegate
data.
h) The submission by the person in charge or in charge, with character
voluntary, alternative conflict resolution mechanisms, in those
cases in which there are controversies between those and any
interested."
- In accordance with the precepts transcribed, for the purpose of setting the amount of the
sanction of a fine to be imposed in the present case for the offense typified in the
Article 83.5.a) and Article 5.1.f) of the GDPR for which the defendant is held responsible, in
In an initial assessment, the following factors are considered concurrent:
They are aggravating circumstances:
The linking of the activity of the offender with the performance of treatment of
Personal data.
In accordance with the above factors, it is deemed appropriate to impose on the defendant
for violation of article 5.1.f) of the GDPR, a penalty of 3,000 euros.
- Secondly, for the purposes of setting the amount of the fine to
impose in the present case for the infringement typified in article 83.4.a) and article
32.1 of the GDPR for which the defendant is held responsible, in an initial assessment,
considers it appropriate to impose a penalty of 2,000 euros on the defendant.
C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es
28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 11/12
Therefore, in accordance with the applicable legislation and assessed the criteria of
graduation of sanctions whose existence has been accredited,
The Director of the Spanish Data Protection Agency RESOLVES:
FIRST: IMPOSE D.C.C.C., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of article
5.1.f) of the GDPR, typified in article 83.5, a) of the GDPR, a fine of €3,000 (three
a thousand euros).
SECOND: IMPOSE D.C.C.C., with NIF ***NIF.1, for a violation of article
32.1 of the GDPR, typified in article 83.4, a) of the GDPR, a fine of €2,000 (two
a thousand euros).
THIRD: NOTIFY this resolution to D.C.C.C..
FOURTH: Warn the sanctioned party that he must enforce the sanction imposed
Once this resolution is enforceable, in accordance with the provisions of Article
art. 98.1.b) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure
Common of Public Administrations (hereinafter LPACAP), within the payment term
voluntary established in art. 68 of the General Collection Regulations, approved
by Royal Decree 939/2005, of July 29, in relation to art. 62 of Law 58/2003,
of December 17, by means of its income, indicating the NIF of the sanctioned and the number
of procedure that appears in the heading of this document, in the account
restricted number ES00 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000, open in the name of the Agency
Spanish Data Protection Agency at the bank CAIXABANK, S.A.. In the event
Otherwise, it will proceed to its collection in the executive period.
Once the notification has been received and once executed, if the execution date is
between the 1st and 15th of each month, both inclusive, the term to make the payment
voluntary will be until the 20th day of the following or immediately following business month, and if
between the 16th and the last day of each month, both inclusive, the payment term
It will be until the 5th of the second following or immediately following business month.
In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of the LOPDGDD, this
Resolution will be made public once the interested parties have been notified.
Against this resolution, which puts an end to the administrative process in accordance with art. 48.6 of the
LOPDGDD, and in accordance with the provisions of article 123 of the LPACAP, the
Interested parties may optionally file an appeal for reversal before the
Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection within a period of one month from
count from the day following the notification of this resolution or directly
contentious-administrative appeal before the Contentious-administrative Chamber of the
National Court, in accordance with the provisions of article 25 and section 5 of
the fourth additional provision of Law 29/1998, of July 13, regulating the
Contentious-administrative jurisdiction, within a period of two months from the
day following the notification of this act, as provided for in article 46.1 of the
referred Law.
Finally, it is noted that in accordance with the provisions of art. 90.3 a) of the LPACAP,
may provisionally suspend the firm resolution in administrative proceedings if the
C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es
28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 12/12
The interested party expresses his intention to file a contentious-administrative appeal.
If this is the case, the interested party must formally communicate this fact through
writing addressed to the Spanish Data Protection Agency, presenting it through
of the Electronic Registry of the Agency [https://sedeagpd.gob.es/sede-electronica-
web/], or through any of the other registries provided for in art. 16.4 of the
aforementioned Law 39/2015, of October 1. You must also transfer to the Agency the
documentation proving the effective filing of the contentious appeal-
administrative. If the Agency was not aware of the filing of the appeal
contentious-administrative proceedings within a period of two months from the day following the
Notification of this resolution would terminate the precautionary suspension.
Mar Spain Marti
Director of the Spanish Data Protection Agency
C/ Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es
28001 – Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es
