In the decision of September 2, 2019, GZ DSB-D123.862/0008-DSB/2019, the data protection authority had to deal with the question of whether the complainant’s right to information was violated by the fact that the information was not delivered to him by the respondent itself during the proceedings before the data protection authority, but by the data protection authority.
Specifically, the postal letter containing the information sent by the respondent during the proceedings before the data protection authority was not remedied by the complainant.
The respondent also forwarded this mailing to the data protection authority. Within the scope of the hearing of the parties then granted to the complainant pursuant to Section 24 para. 6 DSG, the complainant was served with the information subject of the proceedings by the data protection authority. The complainant did not criticize the content of the information, but he did criticize the fact that it had never been sent to him by the respondent.
The Austrian legislator has provided for the responsible person in § 24 para. 6 FADP created the possibility to remedy the alleged infringement until the conclusion of the proceedings before the data protection authority by complying with the complainant’s requests. According to the wording of § 24 para. 6 FADP does not indicate that this reaction must necessarily be made to the complainant during the proceedings before the data protection authority. An alleged infringement can also be subsequently remedied by transmitting this response to the data protection authority, which then forwards the letter to the complainant as part of the hearing of the parties. For the purpose of § 24 para. 6 FADP is that the complainant is given the opportunity to comment on the respondent’s reaction and to give reasons why he or she still considers the originally alleged infringement not to have been remedied. This purpose is not frustrated by the fact that the response to his request is sent to him by the data protection authority and not by the respondent himself. Consequently, the legal interest of the complainant is preserved. In this specific case, the data protection authority therefore ruled that the complainant’s right to information had not been violated and dismissed the complaint.
This decision is legally binding.