Branko Barjaktarovic v The Information Commissioner

1) The appeal is struck out pursuant to Rule 8(3)(a) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. The application has no real prospect of success. REASONS 2) An appeal was filed under s166 Data Protection Act 2018 on 24 th October 2024. The appeal was made on form GRC1 and the appeal related to decision notice IC-239117-X1X6, issued on 15 th February 2024. 3) I treat the contents of box 6.1 on that form as an application for an extension of time to file the appeal and I will come to that below. 4) On 24 th September 2025 the Respondent provided his response. In it, he made these principal submissions: (i) the appeal was filed using the incorrect form. It should have been made on form GRC3; (ii) the appeal is out of time and accordingly the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear it, pursuant to Rule 8(2)(a); the Respondent has deleted his case file and cannot say when the complaint was made but it must have been prior to the date of the decision, which was 15th February 2024; any appeal must be filed within “within 28 days of the expiry of six months from the date on which the Commissioner received the complaint” (Rule 22(6)(f)); (iii) there is no reasonable prospect of success because an outcome was delivered to the Appellant on 15th February 2024; (iv) there is no reasonable prospect of success because the remedy sought by the Appellant is not one which it is open to the Tribunal to make; (v) there is no reasonable prospect of success because the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to consider a procedural failure by the Respondent and in this case the Appellant seeks to challenge the substantive outcome. 5) On 24 th September 2025 the Appellant provided a full response to the Respondent’s application to strike out the matter. In it he argued that: (i) the Appeal is not out of time; the reference to IC-239117-X1X6 was a clerical error and the Appellant meant to refer to a different matter, IC-314469-P9T1; (ii) the Respondent’s decision to conflate two distinct complaints, in an attempt to claim the application is out of time, is a misrepresentation of the facts; (iii) the fact that the Respondent appears to have deleted his case file means that he cannot assert that the Appeal is out of time; (iv) the Respondent cannot support a contention that an outcome has been provided if there are no records available to prove it; (v) the claim is about the Respondent’s failure to take appropriate steps to investigate a formal complaint and is, therefore, procedural not substantive. 6) As is required by Rule 8(4), I am satisfied that the Appellant has had fair notice of the application and was made aware of the requirement to respond to it. Indeed he has provided a fully argued response. 7) I have reviewed the correspondence and supporting documentation supplied by the Appellant in support of his claim. It references complaint IC-239117-X1X6 throughout. I am satisfied, from the GRC1 form and the supporting documentation, that his intention was to appeal in respect of that decision. 8) The Appellant does not appear to have filed an appeal in respect of complaint IC-314469-P9T1. I am satisfied that that the only appeal before this Tribunal is that which relates to complaint IC-239117-X1X6. 9) The Appellant has accepted, in his GRC1 form, that (in complaint IC-239117-X1X6 ) an outcome was provided to him on 15 th February 2024. 10) In box 8.1 of the GRC1, in which the Appellant is asked what outcome he seeks, he has invited the Tribunal to direct that his details are removed from the database held by a third party. This is also reflected in box 7.1 in which the reasons for his appeal are set out. 11) This appeal is against a decision issued under complaint reference IC-239117-X1X6. That is clear on the form and the supporting documentation submitted by the Appellant. 12) I do find, therefore, that the proceedings were issued outside the relevant time limit set out in Rule 22(6)(f). I have no evidence as to when the complaint was made but, at the latest, it would have been made to the Respondent on 14 th February 2024. In reality it will have been made some time before that. 13) I make no findings regarding the appeal having been submitted on the incorrect form or regarding the timing of the appeal. Had my findings been otherwise in respect of the substance of the appeal, I might have done so but I see no need. 14) Rule 8(2)(a) provides that the Tribunal must strike out the whole or part of the proceedings if the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings or that part of them. 15) In this case, I cannot see how the Tribunal has jurisdiction to make an order under s166 Data Protection Act 2018 for these reasons: (i) the remedy sought is not one which is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal; (ii) the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in a case in which an outcome has already been provided. 16) The decision is made in accordance with the overriding objective, Rule 8(4) and Rule 8(2)(a).