- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Austria · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Österreichische Post AG – Court Ruling (Austria, 2020)
Privacy enforcement record
This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
Austrian Post faced a complaint for not responding on time to a request for personal data access. This case is significant because it stresses the importance of timely responses to user requests under data protection laws.
What happened
The Austrian Post failed to respond to a data access request within the required one-month timeframe.
Who was affected
A person who requested access to their personal data from Austrian Post.
What the authority found
The Data Protection Authority stated that the Post did not meet the legal timeframe for responding to the request.
Why this matters
This situation underscores the need for organizations to adhere to response deadlines for data requests, ensuring users can exercise their rights effectively.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 19 March 2026.
Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified.
Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources
In 2019, the data subject submitted an access request under Article 15 to the Austrian Post. The Austrian Post replied to the data subject stating that due to the high number of inquiries in connection of media coverage that they have, complainant within three months as opposed to one month. The data subject replied stating that their request was not complicated, and that they would like to have an answer within one month. No answer was provided to the data subject within the one-month time frame. The data subject then submitted a complaint to the Austrian Data Protection Authority (DSB), in which he stated that (1) he had not received an answer to his Article 15 request from the Post within a one-month, and (2) the information received from his Article 13 request was partially incorrect. The DSB replied stating that they could not yet ascertain whether a subjective right had been violated, given that the three-month period had not expired yet. The DSB told the complainant that they could informally withdraw the complaint within two weeks, or expect a rejection. The complainant replied to the DSB stating that their complaint should remain valid because the information provided by the Post had also been incorrect (Article 13 GDPR). However, the DSB rejected this reasoning, stating that the suggested infringement of Article 13 was to be treated separately in scope to the suggested infringement of Article 15, and that a new complaint should therefore be submitted. Moreover, the DSB stated that The data subject complained about the DSB’s legal assessment, stating that their legal assessment was incorrect and that they had violated essential procedural rules. The data subject claimed that the three-month deadline should only be used in exceptional cases, and that the DSB had erred in assessing that this instance was one such case. The data subject claimed that the DSB had infringed his rights by causing a delay in his ability to exercise his rights. The data protectio
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (4)
Other cases involving Österreichische Post AG in AT
Court Ruling
Details
Ruling Date
28 July 2020
Authority
DPA BVwG
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Österreichische Post AG - Austria (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: