Enforcing jurisdiction
Austria · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation
Privacy topics

Brigitte A. (complainant) – Complaint Upheld (Austria, 2021)

Complaint Upheld
Datenschutzbehörde7 January 2021Austria
final
Complaint Upheld

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.

Brigitte A. complained that N*** & Co Material GmbH processed her personal data without informing her for about five months. The authority found that the company failed to provide necessary information as required by law. This case highlights the importance of keeping customers informed about their data usage.

What happened

N*** & Co Material GmbH processed Brigitte A.'s personal data without informing her in a timely manner.

Who was affected

Brigitte A., who was not informed about the processing of her personal data.

What the authority found

The authority ruled that N*** & Co Material GmbH did not comply with the requirement to inform Brigitte A. about her data processing, violating GDPR rules.

Why this matters

This case emphasizes that companies must promptly inform individuals about how their data is used. It serves as a reminder for businesses to ensure transparency in their data practices.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 3 GDPR
Art. 14 GDPR
Art. 12(1) GDPR
Art. 15(1) GDPR
Art. 4(16)(a) GDPR
Art. 57(1)(f) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 3(GDPR)
Art. 4(16)(a) GDPR
Art. 12(1) GDPR
Art. 14(GDPR)
Art. 15(1) GDPR
Art. 57(1)(f) GDPR

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

National Law Articles
AI-identified
§ 24 (6) DSG
Article 8 (1) B-VG

Entities Involved

Brigitte A. (complainant)
N*** & Co Material GmbH (respondent)

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 23 March 2026.

Processing notes: national law identified.

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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

On 17 January 2020, the complainant received a letter (dated 8 January 2020) from the respondent informing her that the windows she had bought in 2019 might have defective hardware and that she should therefore contact a call centre to have them checked. She then contacted the manufacturer and the seller of the windows on 21 January 2020, who sent her a scan of the respondent's request. The letter from the respondent to the seller of the windows was dated 8 August 2019, whereas the letter from the respondent to the complainant was dated 8 January 2020 (received on 17 January 2020). This meant that the respondent had processed her data for about 5 months without informing her. Moreover, the letter did not comply with the provisions of Article 14 of the GDPR. Copies of the letter of 8 January 2020 and the letter of 8 August 2019 (both in Polish) were attached to the submission. Violation of the right to information pursuant to Article 14 GDPR A. The above-mentioned information must in principle be provided within a reasonable period of time, but within one month at the latest. If the personal data is to be used for communication with the data subject, at the latest at the time of the first communication (Art. 14(3)(a) and (b) GDPR). However, Art. 14(1) to (4) GDPR shall not apply if and to the extent that the data subject already has the information (para. 5 leg. cit.). Pursuant to Section 24(6) DPA, a respondent may subsequently remedy the alleged infringement by complying with the complainant's requests until the conclusion of the proceedings before the data protection authority. As can be seen from the findings, the respondent provided information about the purposes of processing, the categories of data processed and the storage period in the ongoing proceedings before the data protection authority. It is also clear who is responsible for the data processing and was sufficiently informed about the rights of the data subjects and the right of appeal to a supe

Outcome

Complaint Upheld

A data subject complaint that was upheld by the DPA.

Related Enforcement Actions (0)

No other enforcement actions found for Brigitte A. (complainant) in AT

This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Decision Date

7 January 2021

Authority

Datenschutzbehörde

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Automatically normalized and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Brigitte A. (complainant) - Austria (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: