- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Austria · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
DSB (Austria) – Court Ruling (Austria, 2022)
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.
Austria's Federal Court ruled that the Data Protection Authority wrongly dismissed a patient's complaint about access to their data. The court found that the authority did not prove the complaint was excessive, which is important for ensuring people can access their personal information. This decision emphasizes the need for authorities to properly assess complaints rather than dismiss them without adequate justification.
What happened
The Austrian Federal Court ruled that the Data Protection Authority unlawfully rejected a patient's complaint about accessing their personal data.
Who was affected
The patient who sought access to their data after therapy and the Data Protection Authority that dismissed the complaint.
What the authority found
The court decided that the Data Protection Authority failed to demonstrate that the patient's complaint was excessive, violating GDPR rules.
Why this matters
This ruling highlights the importance of allowing individuals to access their data and ensures that authorities must provide clear reasons for dismissing complaints. It sets a precedent for how complaints should be handled in the future.
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 — 20 March 2026.
Processing notes: 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
The controller is a psychotherapist and the data subject is his patient. About four years after the therapy had been stopped, the data subject requested access to his data. The therapist replied that no personal data was undergoing processing. The data subject was skeptical and filed a complaint with the Austrian DPA (DSB). The DSB considered the complaint excessive because 86 other complaints lodged by the data subject were still pending with it and therefore rejected to handle the complaint under Article 57(4) GDPR. The data subject appealed this decision to the Austrian Federal Court (Bundesverwaltunsgericht – BVwG). During the court proceedings, the DSB provided the court with a list of all pending cases which did not mention the content of the cases. The Austrian Federal Court held that the rejection by the DSB was unlawful because the DSB failed to show that the present complaint and the past complaints were homogeneous. The court clarified that, according to the last sentence of Article 57(4) GDPR, the DPA bears the burden of demonstrating the excessive character of the request. The court then found that the amount of complaints is an important factor in determining whether a complaint is excessive. However, it also reasoned that the complaint must be of repetitive character which only occurs when the present complaint and the previous ones are (nearly) identical. In the present case, the court concluded that DPA did not show that the complaints were (nearly) identical since it only provided a list of the complaints pending without describing their the content and similarities.
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for DSB (Austria) in AT
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DSB (Austria) - Austria (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: