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

Court case W176 2250812-1 – Court Ruling (Austria, 2025)

Court Ruling
DPA BVwG21 August 2025Austria
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 that a company failed to provide complete information to a former employee about their personal data. The employee had requested details about their data after leaving the job, but the company did not fully comply. This ruling emphasizes the importance of transparency in handling personal data.

What happened

The court found that the company did not adequately inform the former employee about the processing of their personal data.

Who was affected

The former employee who worked for the company was affected.

What the authority found

The court decided that the company violated the employee's right to information under GDPR by not clearly explaining the legal basis for data processing.

Why this matters

This case underscores the necessity for companies to be transparent with employees about their data. Businesses should ensure they provide complete and clear information to comply with data protection laws.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 5 GDPR
Art. 6 GDPR
Art. 15 GDPR
Art. 20 GDPR
Art. 22 GDPR
Art. 99 GDPR
Art. 15(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 15(1)(h) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 6(GDPR)
Art. 15(GDPR)
Art. 15(1)(h) GDPR
Art. 15(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 20(GDPR)
Art. 22(GDPR)
Art. 99(GDPR)
Art. 5(GDPR)

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

Decision AuthorityBVwG

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 21 March 2026.

No issues were reported by that automated check.

Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified.

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

A data subject was employed by the controller for several years. In 2010 the controller and the data subject signed also a loan agreement. Before concluding the loan agreement, the controller carried out a credit check which resulted in a classification of the data subject’s creditworthiness, nevertheless, a further processing of data of the data subject for the purposes of automated decision-making including profiling did not take place. The controller terminated the employment on 2018. On 2020, the data subject filed a complaint against the controller for allegedly failing to provide complete information and to comply with the request of the data subject for the transfer of the data under Article 15 and 20 GDPR. At a later stage in the proceedings, the data subject withdrew the complaint relating to the exercise of rights under Article 20 GDPR. Although the controller provided several sets of documents between 2018 and 2020, the data subject claimed these were incomplete according to Article 15 GDPR, that the controller’s responses were insufficient and the legal basis for data processing was not clearly explained. The data subject also claimed that its loan-related information was only partially provided and the automated processing of its personal data for credit analysis constituted profiling under Article 4(4) and 22 GDPR. The controller stated that it had provided extensive data in paper and electronic form in a comprehensive and structured manner, that some data were unavailable or withheld to protect third-party rights and that information on the systematic analysis of credit risk was a trade secret. On 19 October 2021, the DPA partially upheld the data subject’s complaint, finding that the controller had violated the data subject’s right to information, because there was no reference to the processing purposes within the meaning of Article 5(1)(b) GDPR and the legal basis was not clear , and also the controller could not rely solely on business or trade se

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 2250812-1 in AT

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

Details

Ruling Date

21 August 2025

Authority

DPA BVwG

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 2250812-1 - Austria (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: