Search results

Protection Authority (Datenschutzbehörde - DSB) in July 2018. The credit reference agency argued before the DSB that the data were still relevant for correctly

Austrian Data Protection Authority (Datenschutzbehörde - DSB) in August 2018. Before the DSB, the controller argued that the report on the alimony claims

Austrian Data Protection Authority (Datenschutzbehörde - DSB) against the controller. The DSB dismissed the complaint, holding that the controller has

complaint with the Austrian Data Protection Authority (DSB). The Austrian Data Protection Authority (DSB) disagreed with the controller's view. It stated that

exclude the powers vested in the DSB by the directly applicable GDPR. Consequently, the BVwG overturned the DSB's decision. The DSB will now have to issue a decision

2 4 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 2 BUSINESS NUMBER W 2 5 3 2 2 2 6 2 6 1 - 1/8 E I M N A M E N D E R E P U B L I K ! The Federal Administrative Court has judge Mag. Jörg

decision and referred it back to the DSB in accordance with § 28(3) VwGVG. It concluded that the reasoning of the DSB's decision had been too superficial

appeal the DSB’s decision on 14 May 2021 to the Austrian Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVwG), claiming that the DSB failed to

complaint with the Austrian Data Protection Authority (Datenschutzbehörde - DSB). The DSB upheld the complaint and ordered the controller inter alia to provide

be attributed to it but the DSB had omitted this attribution. The BVwG agreed with the controller's reasoning. Since the DSB had not named the natural person

later, on 13 January 2023, the DSB transmitted the binding decision of the EDPB of 5 December 2022 to the data subject. The DSB informed the data subject that

subject filed a complaint with the Austrian DPA (Datenschutzbehörde - DSB). The DSB upheld the data subject's complaint and ordered the credit reference

exceptional cases, and that the DSB had erred in assessing that this instance was one such case. The data subject claimed that the DSB had infringed his rights

controller, the data subject filed a complaint with the Austrian DPA (DSB). The DSB, however, issued a decision stating that it suspended proceedings against

for the purpose for which they were collected. In a (further) e-mail to the BF and the DSB on December 3rd, 2019, the MB stated that the data stored at

decision of the data protection authority of August 23, 2019, GZ: DSB-D202-227/0001 -DSB/2019 rightly recognised: A) The complaint is dismissed as unfounded

registered with the AMS, the AMS still processes (saves) data about me (e.g. that from the eAMS), which needs to be changed. They also had more than five years

Federal Administrative Court sends case back to Austrian DPA, DSB (Austria), as crucial facts were not investigated by the authority. Different family

decision of the data protection authority of October 11, 2019, GZ: DSB-D124.1456/0003-DSB/2019 right recognized: A) The complaint is dismissed as unfounded

0 7 . 1 2 . 2 0 2 1 BUSINESS NUMBER W 1 0 1 2 2 0 8 2 3 8 - 1/5 E I M N A M E N D E R E P U B L I K ! The Federal Administrative Court, through the judge