News
Enforcement of GDPR Infringements by Third Parties – First Decision of the Austrian Supreme Court
While the GDPR deals extensively with the rights and claims of data subjects, it mainly leaves the provisions for the assertion of such claims by third parties to the member states and their courts. In a recent decision, the Austrian Supreme Court now addressed this matter for the first time (OGH 26.11.2019, 4 Ob 84/19k): violations of data protection rights can only be asserted by the affected data subject.
Case facts: A lawsuit brought by an association
The decision was prompted by a lawsuit filed by the Austrian Psychotherapists Association against a psychotherapist registered in Austria and his company. The latter operated an online service and information website where a list of all psychotherapists registered in Austria was available. This list had been published by the Austrian Ministry of Health and was posted on the website by the defendant without the consent or prior information of the listed persons.
The complainant association did not assert an infringement of its own rights but applied – on its own behalf – for injunctive relief for violation of the data protection rights of its members. The association argued inter alia that, in addition to the infringement of Articles 6 and 14 GDPR, the defendants had thereby also gained an unfair competitive advantage according to section 1 of the Austrian Act against Unfair Competition.
Ruling of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds, among others, that the association lacked the standing to sue:
While Article 28 of the Austrian Data Protection Act expressly regulates the representation of data subjects by a data protection association in proceedings before the data protection authority, the Austrian legislator has not made use of the possibility of Art. 80 (2) GDPR. Thus, Austrian law neither provides for a class action nor for a possibility for associations to assert an infringement of rights independently of any mandate from the data subject. A violation of Articles 6 and 14 GDPR can therefore only be asserted by the affected data subject or prosecuted by the data protection authority.
The claim for injunctive relief based on the unfair competitive advantage was also rejected: Referring to its case law, the Supreme Court stated, that violations of exclusive rights (such as trademarks, patents or copyrights) of third parties that do not entail official sanctions and do not concern protected interests of the general public, in principle cannot be asserted as an unfair business practice. According to the Supreme Court, the right to data protection is a personal right and thus an exclusive right only to be asserted personally by the data subject. Competitors like the complainant association cannot claim such rights because they are not generally binding standards of conduct for the general public. An infringement of data protection rights violates only individual interests of the affected data subject and therefore cannot lead to a claim for unfair competition by a third party.
Unanswered questions and what to expect:
In its decision, the Supreme Court left unanswered whether claims under the GDPR are enforceable at all under unfair competition law, or whether the GDPR contains a final regime regarding the enforcement of rights. In the latter case, the path to enforcement by way of unfair competition law would be barred. This question is currently being addressed in a number of court cases throughout the EU. In this respect, the final word on this matter has not yet been spoken.
Article provided by: Stephan Winklbauer (AHW Law, Austria)
Discover more about INPLP, the INPLP-Members and the GDPR-FINE database
Dr. Tobias Höllwarth (Managing Director INPLP)
News Archiv
- Alle zeigen
- Dezember 2024
- November 2024
- Oktober 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- Juli 2024
- Juni 2024
- Mai 2024
- April 2024
- März 2024
- Februar 2024
- Jänner 2024
- Dezember 2023
- November 2023
- Oktober 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- Juli 2023
- Juni 2023
- Mai 2023
- April 2023
- März 2023
- Februar 2023
- Jänner 2023
- Dezember 2022
- November 2022
- Oktober 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- Juli 2022
- Mai 2022
- April 2022
- März 2022
- Februar 2022
- November 2021
- September 2021
- Juli 2021
- Mai 2021
- April 2021
- Dezember 2020
- November 2020
- Oktober 2020
- Juni 2020
- März 2020
- Dezember 2019
- Oktober 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- Juli 2019
- Juni 2019
- Mai 2019
- April 2019
- März 2019
- Februar 2019
- Jänner 2019
- Dezember 2018
- November 2018
- Oktober 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- Juli 2018
- Juni 2018
- Mai 2018
- April 2018
- März 2018
- Februar 2018
- Dezember 2017
- November 2017
- Oktober 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- Juli 2017
- Juni 2017
- Mai 2017
- April 2017
- März 2017
- Februar 2017
- November 2016
- Oktober 2016
- September 2016
- Juli 2016
- Juni 2016
- Mai 2016
- April 2016
- März 2016
- Februar 2016
- Jänner 2016
- Dezember 2015
- November 2015
- Oktober 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- Juli 2015
- Juni 2015
- Mai 2015
- April 2015
- März 2015
- Februar 2015
- Jänner 2015
- Dezember 2014
- November 2014
- Oktober 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- Juli 2014
- Juni 2014
- Mai 2014
- April 2014
- März 2014
- Februar 2014
- Jänner 2014
- Dezember 2013
- November 2013
- Oktober 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- Juli 2013
- Juni 2013
- Mai 2013
- April 2013
- März 2013
- Februar 2013
- Jänner 2013
- Dezember 2012
- November 2012
- Oktober 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- Juli 2012
- Juni 2012
- Mai 2012
- April 2012
- März 2012
- Februar 2012
- Jänner 2012
- Dezember 2011
- November 2011
- Oktober 2011
- September 2011
- Juli 2011
- Juni 2011
- Mai 2011
- April 2011
- März 2011
- Februar 2011
- Jänner 2011
- November 2010
- Oktober 2010
- September 2010
- Juli 2010