Court case W298 2314952-1 – Court Ruling (Austria, 2026)
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.
A court in Austria ruled that a policeman's personal information was not properly protected in a published decision. This is important because it shows that even public information must be handled carefully to protect individuals' privacy.
What happened
The court found that the published decision about a policeman included identifiable personal information without proper anonymization.
Who was affected
The policeman whose disciplinary measures were detailed in the published decision.
What the authority found
The court held that the publication of the decision violated the policeman's privacy rights under GDPR by making him identifiable.
Why this matters
This ruling emphasizes the need for careful handling of personal data in public records. Organizations should ensure that sensitive information is adequately anonymized before publication.
GDPR Articles Cited
View original scraped data
Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.
The data subject was a policeman who was subject to disciplinary measures. He filed a complaint concerning those disciplinary measures. The decision of the complaint was published on an official website of the Federal Chancellery of Austria that makes available legal decisions (Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundes). In the published decision, the professional position of the data subject within the police was not redacted. Neither was the place of the police school redacted where he was teaching (including the address of the school and the courses he was teaching). Moreover, the workplace where he was referred to after the disciplinary measure was not redacted. The published decision also mentioned the mental health status of the data subject, as it was relevant for the disciplinary measure, and a religious function he was exercising. Any other personal information of the data subject was redacted. The data subject filed a complaint with the court under national law concerning a violation of the protection of his personal data, claiming insufficient anonymisation. The court held that the complaint was partly justified. The combination of personal data about the data subject’s professional career that was made available on the website made the data subject identifiable pursuant to Article 4(1) GDPR to a significant number of persons. Thus, the data subject’s health status was made available to an undefined group of people. As far as the personal data concerning the data subject’s professional career was concerned, the court held that the making available violated the data subject’s data right to protection of their personal data. Legal decisions are published with the aim of guaranteeing legal certainty as well as transparency. By anonymising the data subject’s personal information concerning his professional career, none of those aims would be impaired. The meaning of the decision would not be altered. The court held that the making available of the health data wa
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 2314952-1 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 2314952-1 - Austria (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: