Court case W211 2268942-1 – Court Ruling (Austria, 2023)
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.
A court case in Austria involved a complaint about a secret search where officials took pictures of a person's office without permission. The court ruled that this violated the person's right to privacy. This case serves as a reminder for companies to respect privacy rights and ensure that any data collection is done legally.
What happened
Officials searched a person's office and took pictures without their consent.
Who was affected
The individual whose office was searched and whose privacy was violated was affected.
What the authority found
The court found that the data processing during the search violated the individual's right to privacy under the law.
Why this matters
This case highlights the importance of respecting privacy rights in any data collection activities, urging organizations to ensure compliance with legal standards.
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
The data subject made a complaint against the respondent, as organ's of the respondent searched through the data subject's office in 2020 and took seven pictures on a private cell phone of the complainants office, the contents of a box and handwritten notes on files. The complaint is focused on the data processing that took place in the secret search and how the respondent violated the complainants fundamental right to privacy under the GDPR. The complaint was made in a timely manner because the complainant only found out after the oral hearing the data processing that occurred during the search of the office.The complaint was filed within the one year complaint period from the time the matter became know in connection with section 85 (4) GOG. The searched violated article 8 of the ECHR, the complainants right to a private life. It is clear the data processing was carried out, outside disciplinary or criminal proceedings exclusively on behalf of the respondent which makes it clear this was not processed out by an impartial disciplinary court. This in turn affected the judicial independence of the judge. According to section 85 (1) GOG, a prerequisite to admit a complaint is that it must violate a fundamental right to data protection by an organ that exercises judicial activity, which is not the case here as there is no connection with court or legal proceedings, it was an issue that took place in the company. The processing of data was necessary for official supervision and therefore, had no corresponding legal basis. The respondent requested the complaint to be rejected and if necessary dismissed. Initially, there was confusion over which court department this complaint needed to be assigned too, in the beginning it was not assigned to a court department as the authority in charge assumed there would be a decision-complaint procedure, eventually the court departments were assigned once the files attached were examined in the legal department and the contents w
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case W211 2268942-1 in AT
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case W211 2268942-1 - Austria (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: