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

Datenschutzbehörde (DPA) – Court Ruling (Austria, 2024)

Court Ruling
DPA DSBAT25 October 2024Austria
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 political party improperly shared email addresses in a campaign email. This is significant because it shows that organizations must protect personal information, especially in political communications. Companies should use blind copy (BCC) to safeguard email addresses when sending mass emails.

What happened

A political party disclosed email addresses of recipients in a campaign email by using an open distribution list.

Who was affected

Recipients of the campaign emails whose email addresses were exposed.

What the authority found

The court found that the political party violated GDPR by unlawfully disclosing personal data without consent.

Why this matters

This ruling highlights the importance of protecting personal information in communications and the need for organizations to use proper email practices.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 22 GDPR
Art. 33 GDPR
Art. 4(7) GDPR
Art. 57 GDPR
Art. 58 GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 9(1) GDPR
Art. 9(2)(a) GDPR
Art. 83(1) GDPR
Art. 83(5)(a) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 4(7) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 9(1) GDPR
Art. 9(2)(a) GDPR
Art. 22(GDPR)
Art. 33(GDPR)
Art. 57(GDPR)
Art. 58(GDPR)
Art. 83(1) GDPR
Art. 83(5)(a) GDPR

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

National Law Articles
AI-identified
§ 30 DSG
Decision AuthorityBVwG
Reviewed AuthorityDSB AT

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Review needed — 21 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified, amount discrepancy.

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

The controller was a political party, the data subjects were recipients of two campaign emails. On 22 November 2021, a staff member of the controller sent two emails with attached “open letters” as part of a political campaign, using an open distribution list in the “To” field instead of using blind copy (BCC). Each email exposed around 400 email addresses, including at least 100 personalised addresses showing first and last names. The controller had collected the email addresses from publicly accessible sources and relied on legitimate interest under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR for the processing, instead of asking for consent. On 4 December 2021, the controller notified the DPA of the personal data breach. On 22 April 2022, in separate supervisory proceedings, the DPA found that the controller had unlawfully disclosed political opinions through the open distribution list. Subsequently, it initiated administrative fine proceedings. On 14 December 2023, the DPA imposed a fine of €50,700 under Article 83(5)(a) GDPR for infringements of Article 5(1)(a) and (c) GDPR and Article 9(1) GDPR. The controller appealed to the court. It argued that the email addresses did not reveal political opinions, that [https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/dsg/paragraf/artikel2zu30 § 30 DSG] required attribution to a natural person in a leadership position, and that the fine was disproportionate. The court partly upheld the appeal and amended part of the decision. First, the court held that the combination of the personalised email addresses and the political content attributed a political opinion to at least part of the recipients. By making the distribution list visible to all recipients, the controller disclosed special categories of personal data within the meaning of Article 9(1) GDPR and no exception under Article 9(2) GDPR applied. Legitimate interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR can not justify the processing of special categories of data. Second, the court confirmed a violation of Article 5

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Datenschutzbehörde (DPA) in AT

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

Details

Ruling Date

25 October 2024

Authority

DPA DSBAT

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Datenschutzbehörde (DPA) - Austria (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: