Complainant: Iris A*** – Dismissed (Austria, 2020)
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 woman's complaint about her data being collected by the Defense Department was dismissed. The case shows that certain government data collections have legal backing, even if individuals aren't informed.
What happened
The Austrian Defense Department collected data about a soldier's sister without informing her.
Who was affected
The sister of an Austrian Armed Forces member, whose data was collected during a reliability check, was affected.
What the authority found
The Austrian data protection authority found no violation of privacy laws, as the data collection was legally justified.
Why this matters
This decision illustrates that government agencies may have legal grounds for data collection without direct notification, emphasizing the balance between privacy rights and national security needs.
National Law Articles
Entities Involved
The Respondent (Defence Department as part of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Defence) obtained data (including residential address) of the sister of a member of the Austrian Armed Forces as part of a so called "extended reliability check" which is foreseen in the Austrian Military Powers Act (Militärbefugnisgesetz - MBG) before a member is granted access to certain military assets. The data was provided by the member himself and with his consent in a "declaration of reliability". The sister (Complainant) had not been informed of this data collection by the Respondent but only learned about it from her brother. The Complainant argued, that her fundamental right to secrecy under § 1 DSG 2000 (Austrian Data Protection Act 2000, prior to the introduction of the GDPR) has been violated. Furthermore, she claimed that the Respondent has violated § 43 DSG (current Austrian Data Protection Act), as it did not inform her about the data collection. After hearing the Respondent and conducting an audit at its premises, the DSB held, that § 1 DSG 2000 had not been violated: The Respondent qualifies as a state authority within the meaning of § 1(2) DSG 2000. §§ 23 and 24 MBG constitute a qualified appropriate legal basis under § 1(2) DSG 2000 that allows for the Respondent's intervention to the Complainant's right to secrecy. With regard to the alleged violation of the information duties under § 43 DSG, the DSB held, that the complainant's data were not processed in a file system because the data only appear in the "supplement 2 to the extended declaration of reliability" and this supplement has to be specially selected from the total volume of data. Therefore §§ 36 et seqq. DSG, and thus also the obligation to inform the data subject under §43 DSG, did not apply.
Outcome
Dismissed
The complaint or investigation was dismissed.
Related Enforcement Actions (0)
No other enforcement actions found for Complainant: Iris A*** in AT
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Complainant: Iris A*** - Austria (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: