- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Austria · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case W298 2322178-1 – Court Ruling (Austria, 2026)
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.
An Austrian court dismissed a complaint from a person who claimed their rights under data protection laws were violated by a credit information agency. The court found that the agency had provided all necessary information and that the person had not properly exercised their rights. This case highlights the importance of following proper procedures when making data access requests.
What happened
The court ruled that the credit information agency did not violate the person's rights under data protection laws.
Who was affected
A person who made an access request to a credit information agency was affected.
What the authority found
The court determined that the agency had fulfilled its obligations and that the person had not adequately specified their complaint.
Why this matters
This case underscores the need for individuals to clearly articulate their data protection rights when making requests and the importance of compliance by data handlers.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Secondary-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 28 May 2026.
No issues were reported by that automated check.
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
A data subject made an access request to a credit information agency (the controller) in 2023. He later filed a complaint with the Austrian DPA and alleged that the controller had violated his right of access under Article 15 GDPR by providing him partially flawed and inconsistent information. In particular, the data subject claimed that no information regarding the logic involved in the calculation of credit scores were disclosed by the controller. The data subject also stated that his right to information, rectification, erasure, restriction of processing, objection and the right not to be subjected to automated decision-making under Articles 14 and 16–22 GDPR had been violated. While the controller provided further access in course of the procedure, it argued that it provided all information required under Article 15 GDPR. After the DPA initially ordered the data subject to provide more information regarding his complaint, the DPA found no infringement of the GDPR. In particular, the DPA held that the data subject limited its access request to partial information and that he failed to exercise his rights under Article 16–22 GDPR before failing the respective complaint. The data subject subsequently appealed the decision to the Austrian Federal Administrative Court. The court dismissed the data subject’s appeal. First, the court interpreted the access request narrowly and found that the controller had not violated Article 15 GDPR. It stated that the data subject had limited his access request to concern certain information only and held that the controller had provided him all such information. Second, the court could not find any infringement of Article 14 GDPR: it held that the data subject had failed to elaborate why he considered his right to information had been violated. Furthermore, the court stated that Articles 16–22 GDPR had not been infringed, as the data subject had not exercised his rights under these provisions by sending the controller a corresponding request on rectification, erasure, restriction of processing, objection or the right not to be subject to automated decision-making. In particular, the data subject failed to comply with the DPA’s order to further specify his complaint.
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case W298 2322178-1 in AT
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case W298 2322178-1 - Austria (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: