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

Court case 2R149/21a – Court Ruling (Austria, 2021)

Court Ruling
DPA LGWels10 November 2021Austria
final
Court Ruling

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.

An Austrian court upheld a complaint against a person who refused to remove personal data from their website. The court ordered the removal of the claimant's information, reinforcing the importance of respecting privacy requests. This case shows that individuals must comply with data protection rights.

What happened

The court ruled that the respondent must remove the claimant's personal data from their website.

Who was affected

The claimant whose personal data was published without consent on a private website.

What the authority found

The court found that the respondent violated the claimant's data protection rights by not redacting their personal information.

Why this matters

This ruling highlights the obligation of individuals and companies to respect privacy rights. Website operators should be aware of their responsibilities regarding personal data published online.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 77 GDPR
Art. 78 GDPR
Art. 82 GDPR
Art. 57(3) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 57(3) GDPR
Art. 77(GDPR)
Art. 78(GDPR)
Art. 82(GDPR)

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

National Law Articles
AI-identified
§ 1293 Austrian Civil Law Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch - ABGB)
Decision AuthorityOLG Linz
Reviewed AuthorityLG Wels (Germany)

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 18 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, 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

A district authority had issued a decision allowing for hawks to be shot in a certain rural area. This decision contained certain personal data of the claimant. The respondent(a natural person) published this decision on their private website. The claimant asked the respondent to redact/anonymise the claimant's personal data on their website but the respondent refused. Consequently, the claimant filded a complaint with the Austrian Data Protection Authority (Datenschutzbehörde - DSB), represented by an attorney. The DSB upheld the complaint, held that the respondent had violated the claimant's data protection rights (remark: the exact GDPR violations are not specified in the judgment) and ordered the respondent to remove the claimant's personal data from their website. The respondent filed an appeal to the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht - BVwG) which dismissed the appeal. The claimant filed a lawsuit, claiming the costs of their attorney under Article 82 GDPR. The claimant argued that the respondent had acted unlawfully and culpably, as they refused to redact/remove the personal data despite the claimant's explicit request. The first instance court upheld the claim and the respondent filed an appeal with the Higher Regional Court Linz (Oberlandesgericht Linz - OLG Linz). The OLG Linz dismissed the appeal. It noted that Article 57(3) GDPR only states that the performance of the tasks of each supervisory authority shall be free of charge for the data subject and, where applicable, for the data protection officer. Hence Article 57(3) GDPR does not forbid that a controller can be put under the obligation to pay/refund legal costs in connection with a complaint procedure under Article 77 GDPR. Furthermore, the EFTA Court in E-11/19 and E-12/19 only held that a data subject cannot incur costs in a proceeding where they have become a party to the case by virtue of a controller appealing against a supervisory authority’s decision. However it did no

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 2R149/21a in AT

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

Details

Ruling Date

10 November 2021

Authority

DPA LGWels

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 2R149/21a - Austria (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: