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

Court case W176 2295345-1 – Court Ruling (Austria, 2024)

Court Ruling
Datenschutzbehörde4 December 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.

An Austrian court ruled on a case involving a tobacco shop that used CCTV cameras without proper notice. The court found that the shop owner violated data protection rules by not informing people adequately about the surveillance. This ruling emphasizes the need for businesses to follow legal requirements when monitoring public areas.

What happened

A tobacco shop owner installed CCTV cameras without providing appropriate notice to the public.

Who was affected

Customers and passersby near the tobacco shop who were monitored by the CCTV cameras.

What the authority found

The court ruled that the shop owner violated GDPR by failing to inform people about the surveillance and did not have a valid legal basis for the monitoring.

Why this matters

This decision reinforces the importance of transparency in surveillance practices for businesses. It shows that companies must comply with data protection laws to avoid penalties.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 13 GDPR
Art. 5(1) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 5(1) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 13(GDPR)

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

Decision AuthorityBVwG
Reviewed AuthorityDSB (Austria)

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Review needed — 22 March 2026.

Processing notes: amount discrepancy, 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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

On the 20 April 2024, the Austrian DPA (Datenschutzbehörde – DSB) received a complaint filed against the operator of a tobacco shop (the controller). The controller had installed CCTV cameras in front of their shop but did not put up an appropriate notice. Additionally, the controller had screenshotted a woman who hadn’t cleaned up after her dog, printed out the screenshot and stuck it to the window next to the entrance of his tobacco shop. The DSB found that the cameras did not just monitor the entrance to the tobacco shop but also the entrance to an apartment building, the footpath the leading up to it and partly the nearby tram stop. The controller argued that tobacco shops are subject to higher risk of danger. Further, the CCTVs use had already been justified through enabling a vandal to be identified. The monitored public area had been kept to a minimum and the recordings were only stored for a maximum of 24 hours. In response to the printed out picture of the woman, the controller stated that he had put a sticker over her face and that the woman herself had most likely removed the sticker. The controller also brought forward that based on training given by the Office of Criminal Investigation of Lower Austria (Landeskriminalamt Niederösterreich - LKA), he genuinely believed that the pictograms sufficed as an information notice. The DSB held that the controller had violated Article 5(1) (a)(b)&(c) GDPR, Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and Article 13 GDPR and issued a €1,500 fine. The controller appealed the decision to the Federal Administrative Court of Austria (Bundesverwaltungsgericht – BVwG). He stated that thieves and criminals constantly threatened his shop and that he had to fear for his life. He disclosed that roughly a month before the appeal a bomb attack on his shop had been carried out, causing five-digit damage. The DSB requested the controller’s claim to be rejected. The BVwG held that the controller did have a legitimate interest in installing the C

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 2295345-1 in AT

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

Details

Ruling Date

4 December 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 W176 2295345-1 - Austria (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: