Court case W137 2308681-1 – 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 dismissed a complaint about a delay in responding to a data access request. The court decided that the complaint was unfounded because the data subject had died, and their rights could not be transferred. This case highlights the importance of timely responses to data requests and the personal nature of data protection rights.
What happened
The court dismissed a complaint regarding the delay in responding to a data access request under GDPR.
Who was affected
The complaint was made by a person who had requested access to their personal data.
What the authority found
The court ruled that the complaint was invalid because the data subject lost their rights upon death, as personal data rights cannot be transferred.
Why this matters
This ruling emphasizes that data protection rights are personal and end with the individual. It serves as a reminder for companies to handle data requests promptly while being aware of the personal nature of these rights.
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 on 07.05.2024 with the Austrian Data Protection Authority (DSB), alleging that an Estonian company located in Tallinn, Estonia, had failed to fully respond to a request for access under Article 15 GDPR. By 12.02.2025, more than six months later, the DSB had not issued a decision. As a result, the data subject filed an inactivity complaint with the DSB, arguing that it had failed to act within the legally required time. By letter dated 17.02.2025, the DSB informed the data subject that the complaint had been forwarded to the Estonian supervisory authority, which would assume responsibility as the lead supervisory authority. By letter from the DSB dated 20.02.2025, the inactivity complaint was transmitted to the Federal Administrative Court. It stated in particular that, due to cross-border processing, the Estonian supervisory authority is allegedly the responsible authority under the procedure referred to in Article 60 GDPR, and that the decision-making period is suspended for the duration of this procedure, in accordance with national procedural law. The Court dismissed the inactivity complaint as unfounded. Under Austrian procedural law, specifically [https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/NormDokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20008255&FassungVom=2025-02-02&Artikel=&Paragraf=8&Anlage=&Uebergangsrecht= § 8(1) VwGVG] and [https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/eli/bgbl/i/1999/165/A2P24/NOR40262693?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Kundmachungsorgan=&Index=&Titel=dsg&Gesetzesnummer=&VonArtikel=&BisArtikel=&VonParagraf=24&BisParagraf=&VonAnlage=&BisAnlage=&Typ=&Kundmachungsnummer=&Unterzeichnungsdatum=&FassungVom=12.09.2024&VonInkrafttretedatum=&BisInkrafttretedatum=&VonAusserkrafttretedatum=&BisAusserkrafttretedatum=&NormabschnittnummerKombination=Und&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=true&ResultFunctionToken=f3119544-88f3-40ff-a7b3-a77e97056d8d § 24 DSG,] an inactivity
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case W137 2308681-1 in AT
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case W137 2308681-1 - Austria (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: