- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Austria · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case W298 2263736-1/9E – Court Ruling (Austria, 2025)
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 where a person complained about excessive complaints being dismissed by the data protection authority. The court found that the authority had not properly investigated the complaint and sent the case back for further assessment. This decision reinforces the rights of individuals to have their complaints heard.
What happened
A person's complaint about their access rights was dismissed due to a high number of previous complaints.
Who was affected
The individual who filed a complaint regarding their access rights under GDPR.
What the authority found
The court ruled that the data protection authority's dismissal of the complaint was unlawful and required further investigation.
Why this matters
This case highlights the importance of ensuring that all complaints are taken seriously and investigated properly, regardless of their number.
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 — 19 March 2026.
Processing notes: 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
On the 14 October 2022, the data subject alleged a violation of his right to access under Article 15 GDPR by the controller. The Austrian DPA (Datenschutzbehörde – DSB) however rejected the complaint on the 18 October 2022. The DSB detailed that the data subject had lodged his first complaint on the 3 September 2018 and since then he had followed it with 73 other complaints. The DSB held that although Article 57(4) GDPR does not specify the meaning of “excessive”, it certainly indicates that a high number of complaints can be considered excessive. The DSB went on to say that the initiated proceedings were legally complex and the statements made by the data subject were very detailed which meant that a lot of resources would be necessary for the assessment of the case. As Article 57(4) GDPR enables the supervisory authority to choose between implementing a fee or refusing to process the complaint, the DSB found itself validated in its decision to reject the complaint. The data subject appealed the decision of the DSB to the Austrian Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht - BVwG). The data subject posed that the DSB had given no legal justification for the rejection of the complaint proceedings. The BVwG paused its assessment of the matter until the conclusion of the CJEU case C-416/23 which had been referred to the CJEU by the Supreme Administrative Court of Austria (Verwaltungsgerichtshof – VwGH). The CJEU in C-416/23 held that placing a numerical threshold on complaints would undermine the data subject's rights. The BVwG held that the DSB had failed to carry out an investigation into whether the data subject had abusive intensions. The BVwG found that there were no indications on an abusive intension of the data subject. Therefore, the BVwG concluded that the rejection of the complaint had been unlawful. The BVwG reverted the case back to the DSB for an adequate assessment of the claims.
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 2263736-1/9E in AT
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case W298 2263736-1/9E - Austria (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: