Court case 6Ob87/21v – Court Ruling (Austria, 2021)
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 Supreme Court ruled that a credit agency could keep records of settled debts for a limited time. A person wanted their old payment records deleted, but the court decided the agency could keep them for a reasonable period. This ruling is important for understanding how long financial data can be stored.
What happened
The Austrian Supreme Court ruled that a credit agency could retain settled debt records for a reasonable period.
Who was affected
The affected individual was a person whose old payment records were stored by a credit agency.
What the authority found
The court found that the credit agency could keep the payment records for a reasonable period, balancing business needs and privacy rights.
Why this matters
This decision clarifies how long financial data can be retained, impacting how credit agencies manage data. Businesses should ensure their data retention policies align with this ruling.
GDPR Articles Cited
The credit reference agency (the defendant) collected past payment data on the data subject (the plaintiff) in order to provide other parties with a credit score reflecting their risk of non-payment. In this regard, the defendant stored data on the plaintiff regarding several unpaid online shopping invoices from 2017 and 2018. While the plaintiff caught up with the payments later on, the data on such invoices are to remain stored as “positively settled” for a ten years’ period in the defendant’s system. The plaintiff requested the defendant to delete all the payment data relating to them. They argued that there was no further necessity to process such data since all entries have been positively settled. Moreover, the invoices amounts were insignificant and the plaintiff’s financial situation has improved considerably. The plaintiff argued therefore, that the incomplete and outdated data would unreasonably hinder their participation in economic life. According to the plaintiff, such impairments cannot be based on data that is up to ten years old. The defendant argued that the processing the data was legitimate. The purpose of the data processing is to grant other companies access to such data, given their need to assess the payment behaviour of potential customers when entering into a credit risk. Deleting such data would distort the accurate representation of the plaintiff's creditworthiness. The interests of the defendant and related third parties would outweigh the plaintiff's interest in deletion. The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof - OGH) decided, that the plaintiff's claim for erasure cannot be based on the ten-year storage period, since as part of an individual assessment, it may only examine the storage period in the particular case. Beginning with the first entry on unpaid invoices in 2017, therefore only an period of storage of approximately 3 years can be considered. In this regard, the OGH found that the plaintiff failed to provide convinci
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 6Ob87/21v in AT
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 6Ob87/21v - Austria (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: