Court case W256 2279237-1/6E – Court Ruling (Austria, 2025)
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.
An Austrian court ruled on a complaint about a company not providing enough information in response to a data access request. The court ordered the company to give the requested details or explain why it couldn't. This case shows that companies must be transparent and responsive to data access requests.
What happened
The court ordered a company to provide more information after it failed to adequately respond to a data access request.
Who was affected
The data subject who filed the complaint was affected by the company's incomplete response.
What the authority found
The court upheld the complaint, requiring the company to either provide the requested information or justify its inability to do so.
Why this matters
This ruling reinforces the need for companies to be clear and thorough when handling data access requests. It highlights the importance of transparency in data processing practices.
GDPR Articles Cited
View original scraped data
Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.
National Law Articles
The data subject filed a complaint with the Austrian DPA on March 16, 2022. alleging that the controller violated his right to access under Article 15 GDPR by providing incomplete details about the specific recipients of their data or the reason why the disclosure of the specific recipients was not possible pursuant to Article 15(1)(c) GDPR., and by failing to provide a copy of the data or offering inadequate justification as to why issuing a copy was not possible under Article 15(3) GDPR. The authority upheld the complaint and ordered the controller to provide the requested information within four weeks or to adequately justify why this could not be done. The controller requested a suspension of the proceedings pending the outcome of another decision, but this request was rejected. The controller appealed the DPA’s decision. Meanwhile, the data subject has passed away. The Court upheld the appeal and annulled the contested decision because the data subject, a natural person, lost his party status in the proceedings upon his death. Since data protection rights are highly personal and extinguish upon the death of the data subject, they cannot be transferred to any legal successor, in accordance with the [https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?ResultFunctionToken=ba0008f7-3b36-4f83-83ee-7878707b664e&SkipToDocumentPage=True&Abfrage=Vwgh&Entscheidungsart=Undefined&Sammlungsnummer=&Index=&SucheNachRechtssatz=False&SucheNachText=True&GZ=Ra+2016%2f04%2f0044&VonDatum=&BisDatum=29.09.2025&Norm=&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=&Dokumentnummer=JWT_2016040044_20160418L00 case law of the VwGH]. The extent of a person’s participation in an administrative procedure depends not only on their status as a party but also on their party capacity, that is, their ability to hold procedural rights and obligations. If the party who initiated the proceedings before the administrative authority dies, the contested decision must be te
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case W256 2279237-1/6E in AT
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case W256 2279237-1/6E - Austria (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: