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

Court case W298 2255416-1 – Court Ruling (Austria, 2024)

Court Ruling
Datenschutzbehörde23 May 2024Austria
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.

A court ruled on a case involving a detective who took unauthorized photos of a person while investigating their partner. The court found that the detective did not have the right to photograph the individual without consent, even if they were related to the investigation. This case raises awareness about privacy rights and the limits of surveillance.

What happened

A professional detective photographed a person on private property without their consent while investigating their partner.

Who was affected

The person photographed, who was not the main subject of the investigation, was affected.

What the authority found

The court held that the detective's actions were inappropriate and violated privacy rights, as they lacked consent to take the photographs.

Why this matters

This case highlights the importance of respecting privacy, even in investigative situations. It serves as a warning for service providers about the need for consent when collecting personal information.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 4(1) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 77 GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 4(1) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 77(GDPR)

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

National Law Articles
AI-identified
§ 1 DSG
§ 129 GewO 1994
§ 133 B-VG
§ 24 DSG
Decision AuthorityBVwG
Reviewed AuthorityDSB (Austria)

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 20 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

The data subject's partner was observed by a professional detective (the controller), because the partner's employer doubted the partner's medical condition as they were on sick leave. The data subject was listed as "target person 2" in the controller's observation report and was therefore also photographed 4 times (sometimes alone) by the controller on their private property. The photos and reports were send to their partner's lawyer and to the labour court without the data subject's consent. Therefore, the data subject lodged a complaint against a professional detective (the controller) with the Austrian DPA ("Datenschutzbehörde - DSB"). The controller argued they had to observe the data subject in addition to the data subject's partner to fulfill the assignment. The controller did accidentally referred to the data subject as the "target person" instead of a "witness". The controller however stated that no sensitive data was collected about the data subject and that the photographs were not intended to be used as evidence. The data subject responded to this claim, arguing that the photographs were unnecessary, as a basic report would have sufficed for such investigative purposes. The data subject emphasised that the photos were taken on the weekend on private property without their permission. The controller further argued that the data subject's full name was obtained from a land registry search, and that the photographs were of poor quality, and therefore the data subject was not clearly identifiable. Moreover, the controller argued that such photographs do not constitute sensitive data, emphasising that the data subject also had some photos on social media. The data subject responded to these claims, stating that the photographs were not blurry and that they had never been and would never be called be as a witness in their partner’s proceedings. Moreover, the fact that the data subject had photos on social media did not allow the controller to take pictures

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case W298 2255416-1 in AT

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

Details

Ruling Date

23 May 2024

Authority

Datenschutzbehörde

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 W298 2255416-1 - Austria (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: