Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde – CJEU Judgment (Austria, 2025)

CJEU Judgment
Court of Justice of the European Union1 January 2025Austria
final
CJEU Judgment

CJEU judgment — not a DPA enforcement action

This is a Court of Justice ruling, not an enforcement action by a data protection authority. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

Several data subjects were subject to suspension proceedings by the Austrian Anti-Doping Legal Commission (ÖADR). Under Austrian law, the National Anti-Doping Agency (“NADA”) publishes the names of persons who have been suspended on its website. For the duration of the suspension, the website includes information such as the athlete’s name, sport practised, infringement of anti-doping rules, and the duration of the penalty. The ÖADR publishes the same information in a press release, with the addition of the prohibited substances involved. For this summary, both authorities are referred to as the controllers. The data subjects filed a complaint with the DPA on the grounds that the controllers refused their request to cease displaying their names and practised sports. They also argued that the controllers were processing sensitive data within the meaning of Article 9 and 10 GDPR, and that the undifferentiated publication system was incompatible with Article 6(3) GDPR. The DPA dismissed the complaint. In particular, one of the data subjects’ complaints was rejected on the grounds that the relevant data had not been published yet. The data subjects appealed the decision to the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG). The controllers argued that publishing the information in their website was lawful, as it was based on the legal bases of legal obligation (Article 6(1)(c) GDPR) and public interest (Article 6(1)(e) GDPR). The BVwG stayed proceedings and requested a preliminary ruling from the CJEU. The BVwG referred the following questions: # Does the GDPR apply to the making information relating to athletes’ anti-doping violations publicly available through websites? If yes: # Does information that an individual has committed a specific anti-doping violation fall under the scope of data relating to health within the meaning of Article 9 GDPR? # Does the GDPR preclude national legislation from publishing the information mentioned above, if it does not make it possible to in

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 9 GDPR
Art. 10 GDPR
Art. 17 GDPR
Art. 18 GDPR
Art. 2(2)(a) GDPR
Art. 2(2)(d) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 5(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(e) GDPR
Art. 6(3) GDPR
Art. 77 GDPR
Art. 79(1) GDPR
Decision AuthorityCJEU
Reviewed AuthorityBVwG (Austria)
Full Legal Summary

Several data subjects were subject to suspension proceedings by the Austrian Anti-Doping Legal Commission (ÖADR). Under Austrian law, the National Anti-Doping Agency (“NADA”) publishes the names of persons who have been suspended on its website. For the duration of the suspension, the website includes information such as the athlete’s name, sport practised, infringement of anti-doping rules, and the duration of the penalty. The ÖADR publishes the same information in a press release, with the addition of the prohibited substances involved. For this summary, both authorities are referred to as the controllers. The data subjects filed a complaint with the DPA on the grounds that the controllers refused their request to cease displaying their names and practised sports. They also argued that the controllers were processing sensitive data within the meaning of Article 9 and 10 GDPR, and that the undifferentiated publication system was incompatible with Article 6(3) GDPR. The DPA dismissed the complaint. In particular, one of the data subjects’ complaints was rejected on the grounds that the relevant data had not been published yet. The data subjects appealed the decision to the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG). The controllers argued that publishing the information in their website was lawful, as it was based on the legal bases of legal obligation (Article 6(1)(c) GDPR) and public interest (Article 6(1)(e) GDPR). The BVwG stayed proceedings and requested a preliminary ruling from the CJEU. The BVwG referred the following questions: # Does the GDPR apply to the making information relating to athletes’ anti-doping violations publicly available through websites? If yes: # Does information that an individual has committed a specific anti-doping violation fall under the scope of data relating to health within the meaning of Article 9 GDPR? # Does the GDPR preclude national legislation from publishing the information mentioned above, if it does not make it possible to in

Outcome

CJEU Judgment

A judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union, typically on a preliminary reference from a national court.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde in AT

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

Details

Judgment Date

1 January 2025

Authority

Court of Justice of the European Union

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
AI-verified and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde - Austria (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: