Recital 65
General Data Protection Regulation · UE 2016/679
| (65) | A data subject should have the right to have personal data concerning him or her rectified and a ‘right to be forgotten’ where the retention of such data infringes this Regulation or Union or Member State law to which the controller is subject. In particular, a data subject should have the right to have his or her personal data erased and no longer processed where the personal data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are collected or otherwise processed, where a data subject has withdrawn his or her consent or objects to the processing of personal data concerning him or her, or where the processing of his or her personal data does not otherwise comply with this Regulation. That right is relevant in particular where the data subject has given his or her consent as a child and is not fully aware of the risks involved by the processing, and later wants to remove such personal data, especially on the internet. The data subject should be able to exercise that right notwithstanding the fact that he or she is no longer a child. However, the further retention of the personal data should be lawful where it is necessary, for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information, for compliance with a legal obligation, for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller, on the grounds of public interest in the area of public health, for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes, or for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims. |
In Luxembourg, the right to erasure frequently conflicts with specific retention obligations: 10 years for accounting records (Article 16 of the Commercial Code), 5 years after end of relationship for AML/CFT data (amended Law of 12 November 2004), and specific durations imposed by the CSSF for regulated financial actors. The Law of 1 August 2018 on the organisation of the CNPD confirms that the CNPD is the sole competent authority for erasure disputes.
Luxgap practice: for each erasure refusal, cite the precise legal basis (article and law) rather than a generic phrase. A refusal motivated by "legal obligations" without reference is requalified as unjustified refusal by the CNPD.