Article 16 GDPR
Legal Text
The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller without undue delay the rectification of inaccurate personal data concerning him or her. Taking into account the purposes of the processing, the data subject shall have the right to have incomplete personal data completed, including by means of providing a supplementary statement.
Relevant Recitals
Commentary
The processing of incorrect or incomplete data can lead to possibly severe disadvantages for the data subject reducing the risk of exclusion, discrimination, or defamation.[1] For example, the use of incorrect data can lead to the rejection of a required loan, causing the applicant to be cut off from essential services. The publication of a news which does not provide a complete information may be misleading and damage the data subject reputation. The provision, titled "Right to rectification", addresses this issue and introduces two distinct rights. The first is the right to rectify inaccurate data, the second is the right to complete incomplete data. Despite the differences between the two, the common factor is the individual's right to avoid a false representation of themselves within a given society.[2]
Right to Rectification
The provision, contained in a single paragraph, provides for two distinct rights: the right to rectify inaccurate data and the right to complete incomplete data.
Right to obtain
To exercise the right to rectify personal data as per Article 16, the data subject needs to request the controller to make the necessary changes (i.e. correct or complete the data). The form of such a request is not specifically regulated, therefore the general discipline of Article 12 applies.
Typically, the controller requires some time to verify the accuracy of the data and determine if it meets the eligibility requirements. To prevent the data from being processed (and possibly used incorrectly) during this period, the data subject has the right to restrict processing for a specific time frame that allows the controller to verify the data accuracy under Article 18(1)(a) GDPR. The only requirement for the data subject to claim this right is to dispute the accuracy of the data. Thus, in addition to a rectification request the data subject may also exercise their right to restrict the processing whilst the request is carried out.[3]
If the controller declines to rectify the data, they must provide reasons for their decision (Article 14(4) GDPR). The data subject has other options for recourse, such as filing a complaint with a supervisory authority or pursuing a judicial remedy.
Right to rectify inaccurate data
The first sentence of Article 16 concerns the right to rectify inaccurate data. The GDPR does not provide a more detailed definition of what constitutes inaccuracy. In everyday language, terms such as "inaccurate", "incorrect", "wrong", or "inexact" are often used interchangeably to refer to something that is not correct.[4] This means that the personal data being processed by the controller does not reflect reality, such as an incorrect date of birth or an outdated address. Additionally, legal classifications, like describing someone as "single" when they are actually in a registered partnership, also fall under the scope of inaccuracy.[5]
Correspondingly, in principle, it is not possible to rectify personal data in form of value judgement ("Data subject A is attractive"). While value judgments may constitute personal data (being "attractive"), they cannot be deemed objectively right or wrong since different views and interpretations are possible.[6] However, in certain cases, it can be difficult to determine whether a statement falls under the category of a factual assertion or a value judgment. This is especially true when a value judgment is based on factual assumptions or contains factual elements ("Data subject B is creditworthy"). In such borderline cases, it may be challenging to apply the right to rectification or to determine its boundaries. However, this does not mean that individuals cannot defend themselves against these types of value judgments.
Firstly, it is always possible to change the value judgement by rectifying the facts on which it is based - these elements can certainly be amended.[7]
Example: XXX
Secondly, it may be even feasible to rectify the value judgment itself, when the underlying facts and/or the decision-making process are objectively wrong.
Case-law: In C-434/16, Peter Nowak, the CJEU clarifies that there might be situations where the [...] the examiner’s comments [i.e., value judgments] with respect to those answers prove to be inaccurate, within the meaning of Article 6(1)(d) of Directive 95/46, for example due to the fact that, by mistake, the examination scripts were mixed up in such a way that the answers of another candidate were ascribed to the candidate concerned, or that some of the cover sheets containing the answers of that candidate are lost, so that those answers are incomplete, or that any comments made by an examiner do not accurately record the examiner’s evaluation of the answers of the candidate concerned.[8] Example: XXX
Finally, to delete the value judgment based on inaccurate information, as per Article 17(1)(c) GDPR, where it does not serve the purpose for which it is processed.[9]
Example: Credit rating, purpose is safeguarding orderly trade, letting creditworthy people accessing the market and conclude contracts. A wrong rating , objectively wrong does not do so, and should be deleted under 17.1.a for instance
According to a first interpretation, minor inaccuracies that do not have any relevance or impact on data processing are generally irrelevant. These could be grammatical or orthographic errors, such as a misspelled street name or a missing "h" in the name "Katharina," or an umlaut written out in the internal databases. However, if such inaccuracies could cause confusion or consequential errors, they are no longer considered insignificant.[10] Another interpretation suggests that the responsibility for determining which data should be corrected and which errors can be deemed acceptable primarily rests with the data subject. Mistakes related to the spelling of the name cannot be considered insignificant because they impact the primary identifier of the data subject in the realm of automated data processing, which can lead to confusion and subsequent errors.[11] The case-law reflects both views.
Case-law: The Norwegian Privacy Appeals Board (Personvernrådet) unanimously overturned the Norwegian DPA’s (Datatilsynet) decision and held that a name which contained an incorrect uppercase letter did not constitute incorrect personal data which needs to be rectified based on Article 16 GDPR.[12] However, the Court of Appeal of Brussels held just the opposite in a similar case: data subjects have the right under Article 16 GDPR for their name to be spelled correctly when processed by a bank's computer systems.[13]
It is irrelevant why the data is incorrect, for example whether the data subject himself or herself originally provided incorrect information or whether the person responsible is the author of the inaccuracy. If the data is inaccurate, it must be rectified.
Case-law: The Hessian DPA (HBDI) held that a data subject has a right to rectification under Article 16 GDPR, even if he or she purposefully provided incorrect information during the account creation in order to circumvent age restrictions.[14]
Right to complete incomplete data
Article 16 gives data subjects the right to have incomplete personal data completed. The GDPR does not define "incompleteness." Whether data is incomplete depends on the purpose of processing, "taking into account the purposes of the processing".[15] In this sense, personal data are incomplete if they are correct in their own right, but give an inaccurate picture of the data subject with regard to the purpose of processing, which can be corrected by adding further data.
Example: If the purpose is the assessment of a trader's reliability, information about non-payment of taxes is considered incomplete if there are pending tax court proceedings with no available information. In terms of creditworthiness, information about a refusal to pay is incomplete without clarification that the reason for the refusal was due to an incorrect delivery of goods.[16]
This also suggests that the right to rectification requires controllers to rectify personal data only when the missing elements are relevant for the purposes of the processing.
Example: A controller running a parcel delivery service lacks some important address information so that parcels cannot be delivered. The data subject has a right to have their address data completed so that the purpose of the data processing can be fulfilled.
The GDPR explicitly states that the right to complete incomplete personal data can be fulfilled through a supplementary statement. This means that the data subject is not confined to the limited data fields provided by the controller when exercising this right. Supplementary explanations provided by the data subject must be taken into account if they are necessary to accurately and unambiguously contextualize the personal information. In this respect, the act of completing personal data can be executed by providing a supplementary statement.[17]
Example: e.g. mentioning the data subject's acquittal and the discontinuation of criminal proceedings).
Procedural aspects
In accordance with Article 12(3) GDPR, the controller has to answer the rectification request "without undue delay and in any event within one month of receipt of the request". This deadline may be extended by two months where necessary, taking into account the complexity and number of the requests. Under Article 12(4) GDPR, any extension of the deadline must be communicated to the data subject alongside the reason behind it. The rectification request does not have to be justified, and the data subject neither needs a reason to exercise it nor prove the existence of damage.[18]
Relation to Article 18 GDPR
Relation to Article 19 GDPR
Article 19 GDPR requires controllers to notify data subjects that the rectification of their data has been carried out, in order to ensure that they are informed about the correct exercise of their right to rectification. For further information, please refer to Article 19 GDPR.
Decisions
→ You can find all related decisions in Category:Article 16 GDPR
References
- ↑ Meents, Hinzpeter in Taeger, Gabel, DSGVO – BDSG, Article 16 GDPR, margin number 2 (Deutscher Fachverlag, 4th Edition).
- ↑ In this respect, the right of rectification represents another angle of the right to a correct representation of the facts concerning the individual. Belisario, in Riccio, Scorza, Belisario, GDPR e normativa privacy - Commentario, Article 16 GDPR, p. 176 (Wolters Kluwer 2018). Along with the rights to erasure, restriction, and objection, rectification can be considered a second-stage of the exercise of rights, in which control of personal data is effectively exerted (the first stage being access to the processing through Article 15 GDPR. See, Kamann, Braun, in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 16 GDPR, margin number 6 (C.H. Beck 2018, 2nd Edition).
- ↑ For further information, please refer to Article 18 GDPR.
- ↑ Only facts can be true or false, hence accurate or inaccurate. Therefore, the right to rectification does not cover value judgements.
- ↑ Haidinger, in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 16 GDPR, margin number 22 (Manz 2021).
- ↑ The determining factor for identifying a fact is whether it can be verified by evidence. Value judgments are only considered abusive criticism if they go beyond acceptable boundaries.
- ↑ Meents, Hinzpeter in Taeger, Gabel, DSGVO – BDSG, Article 16 GDPR, margin number 8 (Deutscher Fachverlag, 4th Edition).
- ↑ CJEU, Case C-434/16, Nowak, 20 December 2017, margin number 55 (available here).
- ↑ Reif, in Gola, DS-GVO, Article 16 GDPR, margin number 10-11 (C.H. Beck 2018).
- ↑ Haidinger, in Knyrim, DatKomm, Article 16 GDPR, margin number 22 (Manz 2021).
- ↑ Reif, in Gola, DS-GVO, Article 16 GDPR, margin number 15 (C.H. Beck 2018).
- ↑ Datatilsynet - 20/01868 (PVN-2020-15) (Available here).
- ↑ Court of Appeal of Brussels - 2019/AR/1006 (available here).
- ↑ HBDI (Hesse) - 62334 (available here).
- ↑ Therefore, the concept of completeness should be understood in relative terms as data sets are never complete. See, Worms, in Wolff, Brink, BeckOK Datenschutzrecht, Article 16 GDPR, margin number 58 (C.H. Beck 2020, 38th Edition).
- ↑ Herbst, in Kühling, Buchner, DS-GVO BDSG, Article 16 GDPR, margin number 27 (Beck 2020, 3rd ed.)
- ↑ de Terwangne, Bygrave, in Kuner, Bygrave, Docksey, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Commentary, Article 16 GDPR, p. 473 (Oxford University Press 2020).
- ↑ Kamann, Braun, in Ehmann, Selmayr, Datenschutz-Grundverordnung, Article 16 GDPR, margin number 18 (C.H. Beck 2018, 2nd Edition).