Complaint Case Notes

編號: 0185/2016/IP

標題: Using business registration information

立案原因: Complaint


      The Complainant of this case is the shareholder and also the administrator (administrador) of Company A, from which Company B intended to recover arrears. Afterwards the Complainant received a registered letter, as sent to his domicile, for the said matter. He alleged that his personal data was illegally obtained by Company B, since with which he had never provided his domicile address, and therefore asked the GPDP (Gabinete para a Protecção de Dados Pessoais/Office for Personal Data Protection) to investigate.


      The data processing of the current case, under Article 4(1)(1) and 3(1) of the PDPA (Personal Data Protection Act), is subject to the same Law.
    The investigation revealed, and also according to Company B, that its business deals were negotiated with the Complainant, who was the representative of Company A. However, Company A did not make the payments and consequently Company B obtained its business registration information for judicial proceedings. Company B repeatedly sent letters to recover the arrears but Company A did not respond at all, and finally the former sent the letter to the Complainant’s domicile, which is the address recorded in Company A’s business registration.
    Article 1 of the Commercial Registration Code, as approved by Decree Law 56/99/M of October 11th, sets out that “The purpose of the commercial register is to publicize the legal status of entrepreneurs (empresários) and commercial enterprises (empresas comerciais), with a view to secure legal commercial trade (segurança do comércio jurídico). The Complainant, being the shareholder and administrator of Company A, his personal interests did not precede the interests of secure business trades, given that his domicile address is recorded on Company A’s business registration and qualify as public information. Along the same line, Company B used the Complainant’s information for recovering arrears, on the basis of the said legal relationship the Complaint has with Company A, also matched the purpose of securing trade. On the other hand, the order documents and correspondences produced by Company B, proving the course of business, were all issued with the seal of Company A, in addition that these business deals were also negotiated by and followed up by the Complainant. These highlighted that the legitimate interests of Company B preceded that of the Complainant. The processing of personal data by Company B fulfilled the legal requirements of Article 6(5) of the PDPA, and did not violate Article 5(1)(1) and 5(1)(2) of the same Law.


      The GPDP informed the investigation result to the Company and the Complainant, and this case was closed.

Please refer to Article 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the PDPA.