Court case 6Nc19/21b – Court Ruling (Austria, 2021)

Court Ruling
DPA OGH3 August 2021Austria
final
Court Ruling

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 decided it couldn't assign a specific court for a GDPR-related lawsuit due to unclear jurisdiction rules. This case clarifies how GDPR claims should be handled in Austria, impacting how future cases are processed.

What happened

The Austrian Supreme Court rejected a request to assign a specific court for a GDPR lawsuit due to jurisdictional ambiguity.

Who was affected

An Austrian individual seeking to file a GDPR-related lawsuit.

What the authority found

The court held that existing rules for local jurisdiction apply to all GDPR-related civil claims, not just those for damages.

Why this matters

This decision clarifies jurisdiction rules for GDPR claims in Austria, guiding individuals and businesses on where to file such cases.

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 15 GDPR
Art. 79 GDPR

National Law Articles

§ 28 Austrian Act of Jucicial Jurisdiction (Jurisdiktionsnorm - JN)
§ 29 Austrian Data Protection Act (Datenschutzgesetz - DSG)
Decision AuthorityOGH
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

An Austrian based data subject intended to file a lawsuit under Article 79 GDPR due an (alleged) violation of Article 15(3) GDPR. The Austrian law contains no general provision determining which civil court in Austria would be competent to handle such lawsuit - § 29(2) of the Austrian Data Protection Act (Datenschutzgesetz - DSG) only establishes which court is locally competent to handle claims for damages following a violation of the GDPR (see Article 82 GDPR) or the DSG. Hence, the data subject filed a request under § 28 of the Austrian Judicial Jurisdiction Act (Jurisdiktionsnorm - JN) with the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH), asking the OGH to assign the case to the regional court of Feldkich (LG Feldkirch). § 28 JN allows for the OGH to assign a case to an Austrian civil court of its choice when it is unclear under the law, which court is locally competent to handle a case. The OGH rejected the data subject's request and held that § 29(2) DSG does not only apply to claims for damages but for any kind of civil claim under the GDPR or the DSG. In its reasoning the OGH referred to its decision 9Ob91/19d of 23.05.2019. The OGH held, that even if that decision (only) dealt with the question of subject matter competence of Austrian courts regarding claims under the GDPR, its findings can be applied on the question of local jurisdiction as well. Hence, the request under § 28 JN needed to be rejected, as the question of local competence can be answered by applying § 29(2) DSG per analogiam.

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Violations (1)

Unclear Cookie Information
high

The cookie banner or cookie policy provides vague, incomplete, or unclear information about what cookies are used and why.

Art. 12, 13 GDPR

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 6Nc19/21b in AT

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

Details

Ruling Date

3 August 2021

Authority

DPA OGH

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 6Nc19/21b - Austria (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: