Court case W256 2235360-1 – Court Ruling (Austria, 2025)
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.
Austria's Federal Administrative Court ruled that the Public Employment Service can use its job market prediction tool, AMAS, but only if it follows specific legal guidelines. This decision is important because it clarifies how personal data can be used in automated systems. Companies using similar tools should ensure they have a valid legal basis to process personal data.
What happened
The Federal Administrative Court allowed the Public Employment Service to use its AMAS tool for predicting jobseekers' labor market opportunities.
Who was affected
Jobseekers whose personal characteristics are analyzed by the AMAS tool.
What the authority found
The court found that the Public Employment Service can process personal data with proper legal grounds, but the use of AMAS must comply with regulations on automated decision-making.
Why this matters
This ruling highlights the need for organizations to carefully consider legal bases when using automated tools. It sets a precedent for how similar profiling systems should operate under data protection laws.
GDPR Articles Cited
View original scraped data
Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.
The Public Employment Service (the controller) is a body responsible for implementing the federal government’s labour market policy. The controller developed a model for calculating jobseekers’ labour market opportunities (“AMAS”), as a tool for advisors to use in assessing jobseekers’ labour opportunities. This model uses data subjects’ personal characteristics (e.g. age, gender, education, previous career) to predict their future chances of integrating into the labour market. The controller planned on making its use mandatory from 2021 onwards. However, it also implemented measures to ensure that AMAS was used as a secondary opinion only; for example, advisors were trained to use AMAS and assess labour market opportunities independently. Advisors were also obliged to explain data subjects the conclusions reached by AMAS, and discuss any possible concerns. The DPA initiated an ex officio investigation, and prohibited the controller from processing personal data using AMAS because the controller did not have a suitable legal basis. Furthermore, the processing was profiling within the meaning of Article 4(4) GDPR, and the prohibition of automated decision-making under Article 22 GDPR applied in any case. The controller appealed the decision to the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG), who annulled the decision of the DPA. According to the BVwG, the controller is allowed to carry out this processing of personal data in accordance with national law. The DPA appealed the case to the Supreme Administrative Court (VwGH)You can read the GDPRhub summary here: VwGH - Ro 2021/04/0010-11. The VwGH stated that there was a possibility that AMAS constituted automated decision-making within the meaning of Article 22(1) GDPR. This was the task of the BVwG to investigate; according to the VwGH, the processing would be prohibited if there was automated decision-making unless the exceptions under Article 22(2) GDPR were met. The Court first stated that AMAS engaged in profiling in
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 2235360-1 in AT
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case W256 2235360-1 - Austria (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: