Court case W256 2230350-1/6E (private camera operator) – Court Ruling (Austria, 2022)
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.
The Austrian Federal Administrative Court sent a neighbor's CCTV case back for further investigation. The court found that the previous decision did not adequately determine if personal data was processed. This ruling indicates that authorities must thoroughly investigate privacy complaints.
What happened
The court remitted a case involving a private camera operator's potential data processing for a new decision.
Who was affected
Neighbors who may have been recorded by the private camera.
What the authority found
The court identified gaps in the investigation and did not establish a final GDPR infringement or impose a fine.
Why this matters
This ruling underscores the need for thorough investigations in privacy cases, reminding operators that they must be prepared for scrutiny regarding their data practices.
Source checks
Secondary-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 18 October 2026.
Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified, 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
On 28 June 2022 the Austrian Federal Administrative Court set aside the DSB’s decision of 21 February 2020, corrected on 12 March 2020, and remitted the neighbour-CCTV case W256 2230350-1/6E for a new decision. The DPA had found that a private camera captured the neighbour’s property, but had not adequately established whether relevant image processing actually occurred. The court identified a serious investigative gap; it did not itself establish a final GDPR infringement or impose a fine. The DPA must investigate the alleged past processing. Ordinary revision was declared inadmissible; this does not establish that the merits were finally resolved on remittal.
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case W256 2230350-1/6E (private camera operator) in AT
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case W256 2230350-1/6E (private camera operator) - Austria (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: