Court case W252 2277317-1 – Court Ruling (Austria, 2024)

Court Ruling
Datenschutzbehörde13 September 2024Austria
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 data subject filed a complaint with the Austrian DPA (DSB) on the 5 January 2021 against her ex-partner (the controller). In her complaint, she detailed that her former partner had recorded their fights in order to use these recordings in divorce proceedings. The DSB rejected the data subject’s claim as it found that the DSB was not authorized to make a decision in this case due to the principle of proportionality (“Übermaßverbot”) as it found that making a decision in this case would excessively infringe on the concerned parties rights. The data subject appealed the decision of the DSB to the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht - BVwG). The BVwG assessed whether the controller violated the data subject’s right to privacy through making recordings to be used as evidence in divorce proceedings. In assessing whether the so called household exception in Article 2(2)(c) GDPR prevents the application of the GDPR in this case, the BVwG referred to C-25/17, in which the CJEU showed that only exclusively personal or familial actions are precluded by this provision. The court held that the disapplication of the GDPR through the household exemption is to be interpreted in a restrictive way and that the controller did not intend to use the recordings for merely personal purposes. Therefore the court held that the GDPR applied to the processing and also rejected the DSB’s claim of the limitation due to the principle of proportionality. The court accepted that the recordings intended to be used in divorce proceedings can be legitimized under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. It highlighted that as per C-26/22 and C-64/22, it must be assessed whether the legitimate interest cannot be achieved through less invasive means. The court held that the recording was indeed necessary for the interest pursued by the controller. However, the court stated that the interest of the data subject not to be recorded in her own home, outweighed the interest of the controller to

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 2(2)(c) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Decision AuthorityBVwG
Reviewed AuthorityDSB (Austria)
Full Legal Summary

The data subject filed a complaint with the Austrian DPA (DSB) on the 5 January 2021 against her ex-partner (the controller). In her complaint, she detailed that her former partner had recorded their fights in order to use these recordings in divorce proceedings. The DSB rejected the data subject’s claim as it found that the DSB was not authorized to make a decision in this case due to the principle of proportionality (“Übermaßverbot”) as it found that making a decision in this case would excessively infringe on the concerned parties rights. The data subject appealed the decision of the DSB to the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht - BVwG). The BVwG assessed whether the controller violated the data subject’s right to privacy through making recordings to be used as evidence in divorce proceedings. In assessing whether the so called household exception in Article 2(2)(c) GDPR prevents the application of the GDPR in this case, the BVwG referred to C-25/17, in which the CJEU showed that only exclusively personal or familial actions are precluded by this provision. The court held that the disapplication of the GDPR through the household exemption is to be interpreted in a restrictive way and that the controller did not intend to use the recordings for merely personal purposes. Therefore the court held that the GDPR applied to the processing and also rejected the DSB’s claim of the limitation due to the principle of proportionality. The court accepted that the recordings intended to be used in divorce proceedings can be legitimized under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. It highlighted that as per C-26/22 and C-64/22, it must be assessed whether the legitimate interest cannot be achieved through less invasive means. The court held that the recording was indeed necessary for the interest pursued by the controller. However, the court stated that the interest of the data subject not to be recorded in her own home, outweighed the interest of the controller to

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case W252 2277317-1 in AT

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

Details

Ruling Date

13 September 2024

Authority

Datenschutzbehörde

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 W252 2277317-1 - Austria (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: