DSB (Austria) – Court Ruling (Austria, 2021)
General GDPR enforcement action
This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
In Austria, a court ruled on a case where a person requested access to their personal data but received a late response. The court decided that the individual could not claim a past violation of data protection rules because the request was eventually fulfilled, even if it was delayed. This case shows that timely responses are important, but individuals must also understand their rights in data requests.
What happened
A person requested access to their personal data, but the response was delayed.
Who was affected
The individual who requested their personal data was affected.
What the authority found
The court upheld that the individual could not pursue a claim for a past violation since their request was eventually met, even if late.
Why this matters
This ruling clarifies that while timely responses to data requests are crucial, individuals cannot always claim violations for delays if their requests are ultimately fulfilled. It highlights the need for clear communication between individuals and companies regarding data access.
GDPR Articles Cited
View original scraped data
Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.
National Law Articles
The data subject has requested access to their personal data under Article 15 GDPR. The controller (Arbeitsmarktservice Österreich) did not fulfill the request at first. Later – during the administrative proceeding – the controller, however, did. Thereupon, the DSB (Austria) informally closed the proceeding. The data subject objected to the termination of the proceedings on the grounds that the answer to their request was too late and was insufficient. The DSB maintained its decision arguing that the data subject has no right to have a past violation of the GDPR determined and that the assertion of insufficiency is be regarded as a new submission under § 13(8) AVG since it changes the substance of the matter. The Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwatungsgericht – BVwG) upheld the decision and reasoning of the DSB. First, the court elaborated on Article 15 GDPR though these statements were not necessary for the decision of the case. It held that a data subject has no general duty to cooperate, but at most an obligation to specify if the controller processes a large amount of data and the data subject makes a very general request or is only interested in specific information or data processing. In these cases, the controller can request clarification from the data subject, but has no right to do so. The data subject may nevertheless insist that all data be disclosed. This means that the two-stage information procedures that occur in practice, in which the data controller initially only provides information on master data and only provides comprehensive information at the express request of the applicant, are perfectly permissible, provided that the applicant is made aware of this fact. Second, the court determined that the DSB was not allowed to close the proceedings informally but should have issued a formal notice according to § 24(6) BDSG because the data subject had objected with reasons against the termination of the proceedings. Third, the court stipula
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (5)
Other cases involving DSB (Austria) in AT
Court Ruling
Details
Ruling Date
22 December 2021
Authority
DPA BVwG
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DSB (Austria) - Austria (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: