First complainant (data subject) – Court Ruling (Austria, 2024)
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.
An Austrian court ruled that a person filming a hunting event must respond to a data access request. The court found that the person filming did not provide enough information about how the data would be used. This decision highlights the importance of transparency when collecting personal data, even for informal purposes like documenting events.
What happened
A person filming a hunting event failed to respond to a data access request from the participant in the event.
Who was affected
The participant in the hunting event who had their image and data recorded without proper information about the data use.
What the authority found
The court ordered the person filming to answer the participant's access request, emphasizing the need for transparency under GDPR.
Why this matters
This ruling reinforces the idea that individuals must be informed about how their data is used, even in casual settings. It serves as a reminder for anyone collecting personal data to be clear and responsive to access requests.
GDPR Articles Cited
View original scraped data
Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.
National Law Articles
The data subject participated in a hunting event on 3 November 2018. During the event, another person (the controller) filmed and photographed the hunt and the data subject in order to document hunting practices and publish the material online. At the time of the recording, the data subject received no information about the the identity of the controller, the purposes of data processing, or the recipients of the data (Article 13 GDPR). On 6 November 2018, the data subject submitted an access request under Article 15 GDPR. He asked about the purposes of the processing, the categories of data processed, recipients, storage periods, legal basis, and requested a copy of all personal data concerning him. The controller did not respond. The data subject then filed a complaint at the Austrian DPA on 09 January 2019. The controller argued before the Austrian DPA that the recordings served journalistic purposes and therefore fell under the Austrian media privilege in § 9 DSG. He claimed that he acted as a form of “citizen journalist” and that complying with access requests would obstruct investigative journalism. The DPA rejected the argument that the media privilege applied. It nevertheless dismissed the data subject's complaint concerning Article 13 GDPR because it considered that the data subject already knew enough about the controller and the intended publication. However, the DPA upheld the complaint concerning Article 15 GDPR and ordered the controller to answer the access request. Both parties appealed to the Federal Administrative Court. First, the court held that the controller processed personal data within the meaning of Article 4(1) and Article 4(2) GDPR by recording photo and video material showing the data subject during the hunting event. Second, the court held that the Austrian media privilege in § 9 DSG did not apply. The court found that the controller was neither a media undertaking nor a media service within the meaning of Austrian media law. The contr
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for First complainant (data subject) in AT
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. First complainant (data subject) - Austria (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: