DSB – Court Ruling (Austria, 2026)

The data subject was a military officer against whom were launched disciplinary proceedings. These proceedings resulted first in the imposition of a fine against them and ultimately in their dismissal. The dismissal judgement was later annulled by the Supreme Administrative Court. The data subject lodged 14 complaints with the DPA from 11 April 2023 to 22 August 2024. The DPA pointed out that in the recent past, it had already decided on 19 previous complaints that the data subject had lodged with it. From these 19 cases, the data subject’s complaints were dismissed nine times. Eight complaints were upheld, and one was partially upheld. Moreover, the data subject had appealed three of these decisions. The DPA found that all of the new 14 complaints shared a common link. They were all related to the data subject’s employment-related conflicts and the disciplinary proceedings. They were also filed against individuals connected to the data subject’s former employment. In addition, the DPA noted the repetitive language in the data subject's submissions. The data subject in their complaints regularly alleged unlawful use of their data, unlawful disclosures and violations of their data subject rights. The DPA highlighted that on some occasions the data subject had filed a complaint with it as early as the day after the rejection of one of their requests. The DPA believed that the data subject was attempting to resolve issues with former departments and superiors through data protection complaints. It concluded that the data subject was using the complaints as a form of retaliation, rather than genuinely seeking to protect their legal rights due to an alleged data protection violation. The DPA emphasized that data protection proceedings should not be used as a means of pressure against former superiors. Consequently, the DPA determined that the data subject's complaints were abusive and their actions excessive. Deeming this an abuse of rights, the DPA decided not to proce