Court case W298 2296144-1 – Court Ruling (Austria, 2025)

Court Ruling
DPA BVwG24 February 2025Austria
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 controller is a credit information agency that collects information from different sources to calculate an individual’s creditworthiness. This information is accessed by third parties. The controller contractually obliges its contractual partners (such as debt collection agencies) to inform it (as a credit information agency) about payment defaults of data subjects. The debt collection agency informed the data subject of the transfer of their data to the controller in 2020, and since then, the controller stored entries on the payment history data of the data subject. The payments were later settled and the entries reflected this. However, the controller refused to delete them when the data subject requested their erasure. The data subject argued that their economic progress was impaired as a result, and brought a complaint to the DPA. The controller argued that the processed data was still necessary for credit checking purposes. The DPA upheld the complaint in June 2024, and stated that the controller had violated the data subject’s right to erasure. Furthermore, the controller was not permitted to store payment history data beyond its settlement, and was required to delete the entries. According to the DPA, further processing of the data was unnecessary, because the claims had already been settled in full. The controller appealed the decision to the Federal Administrative Court, arguing that this payment history was necessary to calculate reliable information about an individual’s creditworthiness. The Court first stated that the controller could only rely on legitimate interests (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR) as a valid legal basis for processing, meaning national law (such as Section 152 of the Industrial Code) or other legal bases under Article 6(1) GDPR were not valid. The Court then examined the case law on balancing the legal interests of data subjects and credit information agencies. Jurisprudence of the Court and the Administrative Court have consistent

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 5(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(b) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(e) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 17(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 17(1)(d) GDPR
Decision AuthorityBVwG
Full Legal Summary

The controller is a credit information agency that collects information from different sources to calculate an individual’s creditworthiness. This information is accessed by third parties. The controller contractually obliges its contractual partners (such as debt collection agencies) to inform it (as a credit information agency) about payment defaults of data subjects. The debt collection agency informed the data subject of the transfer of their data to the controller in 2020, and since then, the controller stored entries on the payment history data of the data subject. The payments were later settled and the entries reflected this. However, the controller refused to delete them when the data subject requested their erasure. The data subject argued that their economic progress was impaired as a result, and brought a complaint to the DPA. The controller argued that the processed data was still necessary for credit checking purposes. The DPA upheld the complaint in June 2024, and stated that the controller had violated the data subject’s right to erasure. Furthermore, the controller was not permitted to store payment history data beyond its settlement, and was required to delete the entries. According to the DPA, further processing of the data was unnecessary, because the claims had already been settled in full. The controller appealed the decision to the Federal Administrative Court, arguing that this payment history was necessary to calculate reliable information about an individual’s creditworthiness. The Court first stated that the controller could only rely on legitimate interests (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR) as a valid legal basis for processing, meaning national law (such as Section 152 of the Industrial Code) or other legal bases under Article 6(1) GDPR were not valid. The Court then examined the case law on balancing the legal interests of data subjects and credit information agencies. Jurisprudence of the Court and the Administrative Court have consistent

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 2296144-1 in AT

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

Details

Ruling Date

24 February 2025

Authority

DPA BVwG

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 W298 2296144-1 - Austria (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: