Court case W256 2278150-1 – 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.
A psychiatric-neurological doctor (the controller) made a report in which a data subject was diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder. The data subject claimed that this diagnosis was incorrect, because the controller did not form an independent medical opinion but instead copied a previous assessment made by another psychiatrist, and formally asked the controller to amend the report. The controller rejected the request, affirming that they stood by their professional diagnosis. The data subject then filed a complaint with the Austrian Data Protection Authority (DSB), arguing that the controller violated their right to rectification under Article 16 GDPR. The DSB dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the diagnosis in a medical expert report represents a professional judgment, not a factual assertion. Under Article 5(1)(d) and 16 GDPR, only inaccurate facts can be corrected, not evaluative or interpretative assessments. The data subject appealed this outcome to the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG), arguing again that the diagnosis was medically incorrect and should therefore be rectified. The Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) upheld the DSB’s decision and dismissed the complaint as unfounded. The court explained that the right to rectification under Article 16 GDPR applies only to objectively incorrect factual information. The law does not permit the correction of subjective professional evaluations, which include diagnoses, assessments, or conclusions drawn by medical experts in the course of preparing a report. Such judgments are inherently interpretative and cannot be subjected to an “accuracy check” under the GDPR. Although the data subject believed the diagnosis to be incorrect, the court emphasized that medical diagnoses are value judgments, even if they rely on factual observations. These value judgments cannot be rectified simply because the person concerned or another doctor disagrees. The relevant question is not whether the diagnosis is m
GDPR Articles Cited
A psychiatric-neurological doctor (the controller) made a report in which a data subject was diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder. The data subject claimed that this diagnosis was incorrect, because the controller did not form an independent medical opinion but instead copied a previous assessment made by another psychiatrist, and formally asked the controller to amend the report. The controller rejected the request, affirming that they stood by their professional diagnosis. The data subject then filed a complaint with the Austrian Data Protection Authority (DSB), arguing that the controller violated their right to rectification under Article 16 GDPR. The DSB dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the diagnosis in a medical expert report represents a professional judgment, not a factual assertion. Under Article 5(1)(d) and 16 GDPR, only inaccurate facts can be corrected, not evaluative or interpretative assessments. The data subject appealed this outcome to the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG), arguing again that the diagnosis was medically incorrect and should therefore be rectified. The Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) upheld the DSB’s decision and dismissed the complaint as unfounded. The court explained that the right to rectification under Article 16 GDPR applies only to objectively incorrect factual information. The law does not permit the correction of subjective professional evaluations, which include diagnoses, assessments, or conclusions drawn by medical experts in the course of preparing a report. Such judgments are inherently interpretative and cannot be subjected to an “accuracy check” under the GDPR. Although the data subject believed the diagnosis to be incorrect, the court emphasized that medical diagnoses are value judgments, even if they rely on factual observations. These value judgments cannot be rectified simply because the person concerned or another doctor disagrees. The relevant question is not whether the diagnosis is m
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 2278150-1 in AT
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case W256 2278150-1 - Austria (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: