Search results

trends and can be found on dsb.gv.at. DSB - Annual Report 2022, Page 8 - https://www.dsb.gv.at/dam/jcr:ee7b155a-0a1f-4d00-98e9-902314c7022d/Datenschutzbericht%202022

428451, 25 November 2020, (available here). Datenschutzbehörde, DSB-D124.1177/0006-DSB/2019, 22 January 2021 (available here). Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten

specifying the facts and legal considerations for, e.g., rejecting the complaint or dismissing the complaint, i.e., not investigating it further, with a view

Article 14(1)(d) GDPR. Similar to the ex-ante information in Article 13(1)(e) and 14(1)(e) GDPR, Article 15(1)(c) GDPR requires the controller to disclose information

LLC, the DSB held that Chapter V. of the GPPR only imposes legal duties on the data exporter but not on the data recipient. Consequently, the DSB dismissed

(Rhineland-Palatinate) ULD (Schleswig-Holstein) Datenschutzzentrum (Saarland) DSB (Saxony) LfD (Saxony-Anhalt) TLfDI (Thuringia) You can help us fill this section

Direct marketing and data broking On 23 October 2019, GZ: DSB-D550.148/0017-DSB/2019, the DSB imposed a fine of € 18,000,000.00 on Österreichische Post

alone, but always in the context of their processing, i.e. as part of a whole document (such as an e-mail) or an extract from a database that goes beyond

Business number DSB-D124.1177 / 0006-DSB / 2019 Appeal at the BVwG / VwGH / VfGH This decision is final. text GZ: DSB-D124.1177 / 0006-DSB / 2019 of January

Authority (Datenschutzbehörde - DSB) started an ex-officio investigation against the Austrian Postal Service. The DSB investigated i.a the records of processing

(effective November 1, 2017). 1.7. On May 13, 2019, the BF sent the following e-mail to the MP with the subject “Business suspended, data protection”: "Dear

Subsequently, the data subject filed a complaint before the Austrian DPA (DSB). The DSB decided that the right to be forgotten was not infringed and rejected

the Austrian DPA (Datenschutzbehörde, DSB) claiming a violation of his right to access under Article 15 GDPR. The DSB partially upheld the complaint of the

number W245 2252208-1/36E W245 2252221-1/30E Written copy of the verbal decision announced on March 31, 2023 I M N A M E N D E R E P U B L I K ! The Federal

2019 Case number DSB-D130.073/0008-DSB/2019 Contestation before the BVwG/VwGH/VfGH This decision is final. Text GZ: DSB-D130.073/0008-DSB/2019 of 9.10.2019

judgments. in line with the DSB's stRsp on physician evaluation platforms (cf. the decision of 15 January 2019, GZ DSB-D123. 527/0004-DSB/2018 mwN), it was also

Identifier (ECLI) ECLI:AT:DSB:2019:DSB.D122.970.0004.DSB.2019 Last updated on 09.01.2020 Document number DSBT_20191108_DSB_E122_970_0004_DSB_2019_00 To the top

Identifier (ECLI) ECLI:AT:DSB:2019:DSB.D123.768.0004.DSB.2019 Last updated on 17.03.2020 Document number DSBT_20191218_DSB_D123_768_0004_DSB_2019_00

until the end of the proceedings before the DSB also applies on violations of Article 13 (and 14) GDPR. The DSB held that § 24(6) DSG also applies on violations

details. DSB-D122.844/0006-DSB/2018 dated 21.6.2018 Note Processor: Names and companies, legal forms and product names, addresses (incl. URLs, IP and e-mail

that is easily accessible to the data subject, e.g. as a complete information sheet in a central location (e.g. information desk, reception or checkout) or

2020 (case number: DSB-D205.023) [Note processor: names and companies, legal forms and product names, addresses (incl. URLs, IP and e-mail addresses), file

2020 (case number: DSB-D550.279) [Note processor: names and companies, legal forms and product names, addresses (incl. URLs, IP and e-mail addresses), file

(procedure number: DSB-D124.3158) [Editor's note: Names and companies, legal forms and product names, addresses (incl. URLs, IP and e-mail addresses), file

(procedure number: DSB-D124.2399) [Editor's note: Names and companies, legal forms and product names, addresses (incl. URLs, IP and e-mail addresses), file

The DSB fined a betting store € 5.280 for video surveillance (CCTV) that was recording a wide area in front of the location, without protocols of the usage

the DSB if these rights are violated. The DSB further held that the procedural provisions of the DSG - which deal with the procedure before the DSB - also

its application: "In its decision of 26 January 2018 (ref. no.: DSB-D122.756/0005-DSB/2017), the data protection authority found (amended by the decision

had been withdrawn. European Case Law Identifier ECLI: AT: DSB: 2019: DSB.D123.921.0005.DSB.2019

interpreting the right to secrecy (cf. the decision of the DSB of October 31, 2018, GZ DSB-D123.076/0003-DSB/2018). According to Section 1 (1) DSG, everyone has

provide certain information (i.e name, phone number, e-mail address and table number) on customers to the local authorities. The DSB acknowledged that the collection

(procedure number: DSB-D124.2138) Note Processor: Names and companies, legal forms and product names, addresses (including URLs, IP and e-mail addresses)

Austrian Data Protection Authority (DSB) imposed a fine of only EUR 150 under Article 83(5)(a) GDPR. It must be noted that the DSB did not apply § 12 and § 13

subject lodged a complaint with the Austrian DPA (Datenschutzbehörde - DSB). The DSB rejected the complaint and the data subject filed an appeal with the

the decision of the DSB of August 13, 2018, only if the two requirements of Section 9 (1) DSG are met. GZ: DSB-D123.077 / 0003-DSB / 2018). In all other

2022 (case number: DSB-D179.309) [Editor's note: Names and companies, legal forms and product names, addresses (including URLs, IP and e-mail addresses),

Administrative Court (BVwG) remitted a case to the Austrian DPA (DSB) because the DSB had failed to establish the facts of the case properly and merely

codes had been approved by the DSB under Article 40(5) GDPR. Inverstigations by the DSB showed that: The holder of the DSB-approval for code S*** explicitly

always decide on the admissibility of evidence (DSB, recommendation of 03/02/2017, GZ: DSB-D213.453/0003-DSB/2016, RIS, also relating to § 50a DSG 2000 and

2022 (case number: DSB-D124.4108) [Editor's note: Names and companies, legal forms and product names, addresses (including URLs, IP and e-mail addresses)

of proceedings: DSB-D122.871) Note Processor: Names and companies, legal forms and product names, addresses (including URLs, IP and e-mail addresses),

|DPA_Abbrevation=DSB |DPA_With_Country=DSB (Austria) <!--Information about the decision--> |Case_Number_Name=DSB-D122.844/0006-DSB/2018 |ECLI=ECLI:AT:DSB:2018:DSB

|DPA_Abbrevation=DSB |DPA_With_Country=DSB (Austria) <!--Information about the decision--> |Case_Number_Name=DSB-D122.844/0006-DSB/2018 |ECLI=ECLI:AT:DSB:2018:DSB

.. ] "). In contrast to Art 15 GDPR, Art 13 Paragraph 1 lit e and Art 14 Paragraph 1 lit e GDPR does not state the data subject's right to information

"affinity for a political party", the DSB imposed a 18 Mio Euro fine on the Austrian Postal Service. In detail, the DSB held the Austrian Postal Service responsible

account for authentication. On 15.06.2016, that DSB issued its decision that consisted of three rulings: I) The DSB held, that Google Inc. violated Article 15

since the settlement, as set out in the decision of 7 December 2018 DSB-D123.193/0003-DSB/2018. The BF then states that if the authority then refers to the

Federal Administrative Court denies legal aid for an appeal from the DSB (Austria) over the right to access Article 15 GDPR. A citizen requested a copy

time of receipt and for legal cases received by post or other physical means (e.g. by messenger) on the time of actual receipt at the office and, if necessary

and 22.07.2013 (Supplement ./X), E-Mail dated 02.08.2012 (Supplement .N), E-Mail dated 25.06.2014 (Supplement ./2), E-Mail dated 13.06.2011 (Supplement

processing of location data. The Data protection authority (the DSB) issued guidelines here. The DSB explained the existing legal basis for the collection and

data subject filed a complaint with the DSB claiming a violation of his right to access under Article 15 GDPR. The DSB partially upheld the complaint of the

2020, Art. 32 GDPR marginal 40; Notification of the Austrian DSB, Az. D213.692 / 0001-DSB / 2018 from November 16, 2018, 3.2., Available at https://www

violation of the GDPR. The complaint, originally filed with the Austrian DPA (DSB), advanced a number of grounds upon which the consent of the data subject

Digital Rights) filed a complaint with the Austrian DPA (DSB) against the controller and asked the DSB to order the controller to stop all processing operations

96(3) TKG. Spam Emails are regulated in § 107(3) TKG. The Datenschutzbehörde (DSB) is the national data protection authority for Austria. It has replace the

from the e-card using the e-card system (paragraphs 31 a, ff ASVG) or 2. Using an E-ID (§ 2 Z 10 E-GovG) or2. Using an E-ID (Section 2, Number 10, E-GovG)

maintained video records for 48 hours. In response to the Austrian DPA's (DSB) investigation, the controller noted that preventing pupils from being endangered

(case number: DSB-D124.1413/22) [Editor's note: Names and companies, legal forms and product names, addresses (including URLs, IP and e-mail addresses)

"reception theory" for example the decision of the DSB of February 22, 2019, GZ: DSB-D124.098/0002-DSB/2019, available in the RIS) . the Respondent received

2020 (case number: DSB-D124.909) [Note processor: Names and companies, legal forms and product names, addresses (incl. URLs, IP and e-mail addresses), file

In particular, consent shall be specific to every “processing operation” (i.e. the purpose of the processing). When there are multiple processing operations

with the DSB on the phone and stated that they did not receive the e-mails due to technical problems and that the DSB should resend them to another e-mail

Law'). The DSB disagreed, stating the forwarding of the complainant's name does not comply with the principle of data minimisation. Thus, the DSB held that

interpreting the right to confidentiality (cf. the DSB's decision of October 31, 2018, GZ DSB-D123.076/0003-DSB/2018).The GDPR and in particular The principles

personal data. On 22 January 2022, the complainant disclosed the official e-mail address and the official telephone number of a data subject to the Austrian

personal data within the meaning of Art. 9 GDPR (cf. DSB of June 7, 2018, GZ DSB-D202.207/0001-DSB/2018, mwN). Paragraph 7, DSG standardizes data processing

(case number: DSB-D124.1473/22) [Editor's note: Names and companies, legal forms and product names, addresses (including URLs, IP and e-mail addresses)

C-469/10 [ASNEF and FECEMD] para. 38) (cf. the Notice of the DSB from 4.7.2019, GZ: DSB-D123.652/0001-DSB/2019, RIS, license plate recognition).,4. In this context

2021 (case number: DSB-D124.2701) [Editor's note: Names and companies, legal forms and product names, addresses (including URLs, IP and e-mail addresses)

2021 (case number: DSB-D124.2575) [Editor's note: Names and companies, legal forms and product names, addresses (including URLs, IP and e-mail addresses)

health status of the data subject, i.e. data concerning health within the meaning of Article 4(15) GDPR. The DSB founds that the GDPR does not apply due

foundation. With ruling part 1 of the notice of April 10, 2019, GZ. DSB-D123.357/0001-DSB/2019, the data protection authority partially rejected the data protection

patient at the hospital, submitted a request via e-mail for information about the data subject’s data. In the e-mail to the controller, the City of Vienna,

697/0011-DSB/2018). (i.e. a complaint that does not only affect the bP person) is inadmissible, compare the DSB's decision of November 26, 2018, GZ: DSB-D216

complaints with the DSB about the same two subject matters (137) and the present complaint was closely linked to these complaints. The DSB issued a corresponding

confidentiality according to § 1 paragraph 1 DSG (cf. DSB from September 13, 2018, DSB-D123.070/0005- DSB/2018, according to which a breach of Art. 32 DSGVO

data protection authority (hereinafter “DSB”) on behalf of from B*** a. A non-binding form provided by the DSB on its website was used for the report.

2021 (case number: DSB-D550.214) [Note processor: names and companies, legal forms and product names, addresses (incl. URLs, IP and e-mail addresses), file

publicly available at least until 3 October 2023. Firstly, the Austrian DPA (DSB) held that the controller processed personal data of the data subject by publishing

2022 (case number: DSB-D550.509) [Editor's note: Names and companies, legal forms and product names, addresses (including URLs, IP and e-mail addresses),

(Appendix ./D),  the e-mail from the complainant's representative to the first respondent dated 18 November 2022 (Appendix ./E) and  the first respondent's

be argued that the DSB would be called upon to control the legislative body. According to the wording of paragraph 18, DSG, the DSB is established as a

2021 (case number: DSB-D205.482) [Note processor: names and companies, legal forms and product names, addresses (incl. URLs, IP and e-mail addresses), file

interest must be actual and current (i.e. it must not be fictitious or speculative) and there must be a real risk situation (e.g. serious incidents in the past

(Appendix ./D),  the e-mail from the complainant's representative to the first respondent dated 18 November 2022 (Appendix ./E) and  the first respondent's

(see the DSB's decision of April 16, 2019, GZ: DSB-D213.679/0003-DSB/2018). What is to be expected is the DSB's decision of April 16, 2019, GZ: DSB-D213.679/0003-DSB/2018)

GZ: DSB-D123.768/0004-DSB/2019). the decision of 2 December 2019, GZ: DSB-D124.352/0003-DSB/2019, and of 18 December 2019, GZ: DSB-D123.768/0004-DSB/2019)

43 1 711 23-889 15 41 E-mail: einlaufstelle@bvwg.gv.at www.bvwg.gv.at Decision date 15.12.2023 Reference number W108 2273800-1/6E IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC

anonymisation as a means of deletion, see also the DSB decision of 5 December 2018, DSB-D123.270/0009-DSB/2018). The accused would have to ensure – for example

cookie-agreed=2; __unam=67c8073-173e205d800-f576793-2; TS018cf77a=017ccc203c9e7bc4149f20e42e6a3643881397eb41e025f2c54bb e7141c720c53441c2483c; has_js=1; _gid=GA1

with the DSB claiming that they never gave their consent to be contacted via phone for purposes of political advertisement. In its analysis, the DSB first

0 4 . 2 0 2 2 BUSINESS NUMBER W 2 5 8 2 2 4 7 0 2 8 - 1 / 1 1 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. Gerold

Dissatisfied with the DSB's decision, the data subject filed an appeal with the BVwG, restating the arguments she had broguht before the DSB. The BVwG held that

(1) lit c and lit e (in the case of video surveillance by private individuals, this would probably be based on Art. 6 (1) lit c and lit e). 1 lit f)" (Ka

responsible after receipt of the request for information (DSB dated June 27, 2019, DSB-D124.071/0005-DSB/2019). In the present case, at the time of receipt of

that the DSB had failed to notice that the database entries which the DSB ordered the controller to erase had already been erased by the time the DSB issued

had an e-mail or postal address in addition to his or her name. Only a qualified electronic signature and no E-ID within the meaning of § 4 (1) E-GovG had

complaint with the Austrian Data Protection Authority (DSB) regarding the lawfulness of these recordings. The DSB rejected the handling of the complaint based on

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

2 2 . 1 2 . 2 0 2 1 BUSINESS NUMBER W 2 7 4 2 2 4 6 1 6 6 - 1/4 E I M N A M E N D E R E P U B L I K ! The Federal Administrative Court recognizes Mag. LUGHOFER

decision of the data protection authority of October 23, 2019, GZ: DSB-D213.895 / 0003-DSB / 2019, based on the submission application from XXXX GmbH rightly

The DSB filed an appeal against this decision with the VwGH requesting it to repeal the BVwG's decision and to reinstate the decision of the DSB. A) Is

Austrian Data Protection Authority (Datenschutzbehörde - DSB), represented by an attorney. The DSB upheld the complaint, held that the respondent had violated

the decision of the data protection authority of 13.09.2019, Zl. DSB-D123.537/0005-DSB/2019, A1) was decided: In so far as the appeal relates to part 2

background, the data subject filed a complaint with the DSB. After hearing the controller, the DSB established that it did reply to the access request and

affirm the media privilege in a decision of 13 August 2018 (Case No.: DSB-D123.077/0003-DSB/2018). Furthermore, in its judgment of 12.2.2019 (C-345/17, NVwZ

implementation of Article 85(2) GDPR. The DSB dealt with the complaint and found that it should be dismissed. The DSB concluded that the media privilege of

the decision of the data protection authority of May 28, 2018, DSB-D216.580 / 0002-DSB / 2018, which are favorable for her. In this decision it was only

itself. The DSB appealed before the Administrative Supreme Court (VwGH). The VwGH partly upheld the BVwG decision. Regarding point 1) of the DSB decision

complaint to the Austrian DPA (DSB), the data subject requested, among other things, the deletion of these photographs. The DSB did not follow the data subject

of Austria Postal address: Erdbergstra e 192 - 196 1030Vienna Tel: +43 1 60149 - 0 Fax: +43 1 711 23-889 15 41 E-mail: einlaufstelle@bvwg.gv.at www.bvwg

neighbors, and the data subject filed a complaint with the Austrian DPA (DSB) alleging that the controller had processed their personal data without a

taking into account the attached documents - can be identified beyond doubt, i.e. without the possibility of confusion (VwGH 13.11.2014 , Ra2014 / 12/0010)

April 22, 2022, GZ. D155.026, 2022-0.298.191, the data protection authority (DSB) made the following decision after obtaining extensive statements from the

decision of the data protection authority from April 10th, 2019, GZ. DSB-D123.357/0001-DSB/2019, rightly recognized after an oral hearing due to a violation

protection authority, Barichgasse 40-42, 1030 Vienna, of 09.09.2019, GZ DSB-D 124.274/0007-DSB/2019, co-participant XXXX , XXXX , represented by Gheneff-Rami-Sommer

provide information on the recipients of data and thereby violated Article 14(1)(e) GDPR. Finally, the court rejected the complaint on the alleged violations

gv.at decision date 03.02.2022 business number W214 2224204-1/28E I M N A M E N D E R E P U B L I K ! The Federal Administrative Court, through the judge

Subsequently, the data subject filed a complaint before the Austrian DPA (DSB). The DSB decided that the right to be forgotten was infringed since the controller

2018 (Ref.: DSB-D123.077/0003-DSB/2018, Annex B 1, pp. 323 et seq. Furthermore, in its judgment of 12 February 2019 (C-345/17, NVwZ 2019, 465 - E/W), the European

the counsellors. In the contested decision the Data Protection Authority (DSB) initiated an ex officio investigation into the matter and concluded that

subject filed a complaint with the Austrian DPA (Datenschutzbehörde - DSB). The DSB dismissed the complaint. On the one hand, disclosure before the civil

decision of the data protection authority dated February 28, 2020, Zl. DSB-D123.685/0009-DSB/2019, rightly recognised: a) The complaint is upheld in accordance

taken into account in their case law (cf. notice of DSB of August 19, 2019, GZ DSB-D123.957/0003-DSB/2019). c) On the (limited) competence of the data protection

article 60(8) GDPR is the supervisory authority to which the claim, i.e. the DSB, who should have adopted and notified the resolution to the person interested

under the new legal situation by the authority concerned (DSB January 15, 2019 , DSB-D123.527/0004-DSB/2018 – docfinder). With regard to the alleged inadmissibility

controller. The DSB dismissed the complaint. The Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwatungsgericht – BVwG) upheld the decision of the DSB. The court determined

terms of the GDPR ("controller", "processor") are mentioned in various places (e.g. §§ 6, 8, 22, 29, 42, 44, 46) and legal effects are attached to these terms

6(1)(f) GDPR are not relevant, as there is already a violation of the applicable ePrivacy legislation that requires consent. For that reason, the DPA held that

the decision of the data protection authority of 04.01.2019, GZ: DSB-D123.264/0007-DSB/2018, co-participants XXXX , XXXX , represented by Mag. Stefan KORAB

or a right to object to this processing; i.e. the existence of a right of appeal to a supervisory authority; e. if the personal data were not collected from

lit. The MB had already asked a similar question in proceedings DSB-D123.918 / 0003-DSB / 2019, namely in relation to requests for information. In its decision

answer, the qualification as "personal data" within the meaning of Art. i.e. Art. 4 No. 1 DS-GVO (on names: BGH, judgment of October 2021 - VI ZR 489/19

issued in accordance with Section 13 (3) AVG. After the deadline set by the DSB for the improvement has expired without result, the request can be rejected

against the decision of the data protection authority of 16.03.2020, Zl DSB-D123.386 2020-0.176.784, after an oral hearing on 07.09.2020: A) The complaint

0 . 1 2 . 2 0 2 1 BUSINESS NUMBER W 2 7 4 2 2 4 2 6 3 8 - 1/1 0 E I M N A M E N D E R E P U B L I K ! The Federal Administrative Court recognizes Mag. LUGHOFER

Decision date July 10, 2023 business number W256 2234976-1/19E W256 2234976-2/19E I M N A M E N D E R R E P U B L I K! The Federal Administrative Court, through

The tenant then submitted a complaint to the Data Protection Authority (DSB) which found that the respondent's right to secrecy had been violated by unlawfully

does not clarify how the e-mail notification system tied to the front door camera of the data subject can be used to send spam e-mails from his account.

had the asserted information pursuant to Article 14 (1) (d), (e) and (f) and (2) (c), (e) and (f) of the GDPR in accordance with Article 14 (5) (a) of

At the beginning of 2019, his customer advisor there used the BF's business e-mail address to clarify a private matter of the BF and communicated with him

complaint in response to Spotify's answer to the access request with the Austrian DSB. Subsequently, the complaint was forwarded to the Swedish IMY as the lead

according to § 38 AVG if it is prior to the administrative court proceedings (cf. e.g. VwGH 13.12.2011, 2011/22/0316). The questions submitted by the Court of

no. 8). [47] 2.10. The decision of the data protection authority DSB-D123.077/0003-DSB/2018 cited by the defendants in their revision does not deal with

which it had not previously been informed. XXXX sent her two e-mails, but she did not open these e-mails because she did not know the sender at the time and

the district court XXXX from August 5th, 2016, AZ XXXX, GZ: XXXX, clause 1) e), the inheritance was given to the BF at 1/9. According to point 2) A) and

could have had established contact between the parties involved in other ways, e.g. by referring to the postal address of the tenant, and that the disclosure

care” in the context of registering for a customer account until June 2020 (i.e. at the time the customer account was created by the party involved). , whereby

2 . 1 2 . 2 0 2 1 BUSINESS NUMBER W 2 7 4 2 2 4 6 3 5 5 - 1/2 0 E I M N A M E N D E R E P U B L I K ! The Federal Administrative Court recognizes Mag. LUGHOFER

have given us your name and address by telephone, post, on our website or by e-mail." in the consumer customer management table "Customer created manually

NGO. It is similar to other decisions on the 101 complaints by the Austrian DSB, the French CNIL and the Garante itself. The EDPB made a task force to coordinate

Administrative Court (BVwG) remitted a case to the Austrian DPA (DSB) because the DSB had failed to establish the facts of the case properly and to assess

The BVwG first of all considered that the DSB erred in assuming that this constituted a case in which the DSB has a limited competence to decide which documents

Art. 9 Para. 1 DSGVO) by accessing the data of the persons concerned in the e-vaccination card. The query in question had not been carried out on behalf

Paragraph 1, Letter e of the GDPR. The processing of personal data is lawful in accordance with Article 6, Paragraph 1, Letter e, of the GDPR - among

instructions as well as conducted training courses. The Data Protection Authority (DSB) initiated an ex officio investigation into the matter and concluded that

object would only apply for data processed on the legal basis of Article 6(1)(e) or (f) GDPR. However, the controller also processed the data based on Article

held that the suspension was unlawful and ordered the DSB to proceed the investigations. The DSB appealed this decision to the Supreme Administrative Court

W274 2230370-1/4E European Case Law Identifier: Appeal from: Appeal to: Original Language(s): German Original Source: Datenschutzbehörde - DSB - Newsletter

a company, was anonymoulsy sent to the Austrian DPA (Datenschutzbehörde - DSB) . The DPA thus started an ex officio investigation and concluded, by decision

valid from January 1st, 2000 to December 31st, 2009 saying W252 2247092-1/8E IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC! The Federal Administrative Court, through judge

matter of practice, of the data on the servers closest to the users; (...) e) the fact that several million sites around the world use Google Analytics

(1) lit. e) GDPR, to be contradicted. Because this standard does not meet the requirements of the optional opening clause of Art. 23 Para. 1 lit. e), Para

original for more details. Ro 2021/04/0010-11 December 21, 2023 I M N A M E N D E R R E P U B L I K! The Administrative Court has through the presiding Senate

fall under the GDPR (the Austrian DSB is not competent for the enforcement of § 165 TKG, which stems from Article 5(3) ePrivacy Directive) and forwarded

DSG Art. 2 § 24 valid from 01.01.2000 to 31.12.2009 saying W176 2255954-1/4E IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC! The Federal Administrative Court, through the