Enforcing jurisdiction
Austria · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation
Privacy topics

Datenschutzbehörde – CJEU Judgment (Austria, 2025)

CJEU Judgment
Court of Justice of the European Union9 January 2025Austria
final
CJEU Judgment

CJEU judgment — not a DPA enforcement action

This is a Court of Justice ruling, not an enforcement action by a data protection authority. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on a case involving a user's complaint about excessive requests to a data protection authority. This ruling clarifies how complaints should be handled and emphasizes the importance of user rights. Companies must understand the implications of user requests to avoid legal issues.

What happened

The CJEU addressed whether a user's multiple complaints to a data protection authority could be deemed excessive under GDPR.

Who was affected

The affected person was a user who lodged multiple complaints regarding responses to data access requests.

What the authority found

The Court ruled that not all repeated requests are excessive; they must also be manifestly vexatious or abusive to be dismissed.

Why this matters

This ruling highlights the importance of properly addressing user complaints. Companies must be prepared to handle requests and understand the legal framework surrounding user rights.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
View original scraped data
Art. 52(4) GDPR
Art. 57(1)(e) GDPR
Art. 57(3) GDPR
Art. 57(4) GDPR
Art. 77(1) GDPR

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

Decision AuthorityCJEU
Reviewed AuthorityVwGH (Austria)

Source checks

Secondary-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 21 March 2026.

Processing notes: authority corrected.

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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

On 17 February 2020, the data subject lodged a complaint with the Austrian DPA. He complained that the controller had not responded to his access request under Article 15 GDPR for access within one month. On 22 April 2020, the DPA made the decision to refuse to act on this complaint, arguing that it was “excessive” under Article 57(4) GDPR. The DPA observed in particular that, over a period of about 20 months, the data subject had sent it 77 complaints arguing that various controllers failed to respond within one month to his requests for access or erasure. Also, the DPA highlighted the fact that the data subject regularly contacted the DPA by telephone in order to report additional facts and to make additional requests. The data subject brought an action before the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht – BVwG). On 22 December 2022, the BVwG upheld the data subject’s action. It held that, in order for requests to be "excessive” under Article 57(4) GDPR, it is not enough that these requests had been made repeatedly and frequently, but it is also needed that they had been manifestly vexatious or abusive. The DPA appealed this judgement before the Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltunsgerichtshof – VwGH). This court decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling: # Must the concept of “requests” in Article 57(4) GDPR be interpreted as meaning that it also covers “complaints” under Article 77(1) GDPR? # Must Article 57(4) GDPR be interpreted as meaning that, for requests to be “excessive”, it is sufficient that a data subject has merely addressed a certain number of requests to a DPA within a certain period of time, irrespective of whether the facts are different and/or whether the requests (complaints) concern different controllers, or is an abusive intention on the part of the data subject required in addition to the frequent repetition of requests (complaints)? # Must Article 57(4) GDPR be in

Outcome

CJEU Case

A judgment or Advocate General opinion in a case before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Details

Judgment Date

9 January 2025

Authority

Court of Justice of the European Union

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Automatically normalized and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Datenschutzbehörde - Austria (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: