- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Austria · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case W176 2255954-1 – Court Ruling (Austria, 2023)
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.
A court ruled that a company's complaint against an individual for unlawful data processing was dismissed due to a timing issue. This case highlights the importance of acting promptly when addressing data protection concerns.
What happened
The court dismissed a complaint from a company against an individual for unlawfully processing employee data because it was filed too late.
Who was affected
The company that filed the complaint was affected by the dismissal of their case.
What the authority found
The court upheld the authority's decision, stating that only individuals can lodge complaints under GDPR, not companies.
Why this matters
This ruling emphasizes the need for companies to act quickly when they believe their data rights have been violated. Delays can result in losing the right to seek redress.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 20 March 2026.
Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified, authority corrected.
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
A company filed a complaint against an individual – the controller – that unlawfully processed personal data of its employees and shareholders. The Austrian DPA dismissed the complaint claiming that the company waited more than 1 year since the time it became aware of the unlawful processing before filing. Therefore, its right to lodge a complaint expired. The company appealed the decision before the Austrian Federal Administrative Court. According to the company, by refusing to examine the case in the merits the Austrian DPA violated Article 77 GDPR. The Austrian DPA argued that a legal person does not fall within the personal scope of the GDPR pursuant to Article 1(1) and (2) GDPR. Therefore, no discussion on the applicability of Article 77 GDPR was relevant in the case at issue. The court clarified that only data subjects within the meaning of Article 4(1) GDPR have a right to lodge a complaint with the competent supervisory authority pursuant to Article 77 GDPR. Legal persons are not included in the category of "data subjects", as the GDPR mentions only “an identified or identifiable natural person”. As a legal person does not fall within the scope of protection of the GDPR, but (potentially) only of national data protection law, the national legislator can establish time limitations in the exercise of the right to lodge a complaint. This was the case with Austrian law, which enables the DPA to reject a complaint when the latter was filed after one year since the relevant facts became known to the affected legal person. Therefore, the court upheld the DPA’s view and dismissed the appeal.
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case W176 2255954-1 in AT
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Ruling Date
30 May 2023
Authority
Datenschutzbehörde
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case W176 2255954-1 - Austria (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: