[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$fbK2B0fNxdBZFWeg1fwuQQPi6xTxnVfvN1fCs7dBfBFw":3},{"article":4,"iocs":53,"watch_terms":54,"solutions":55,"lesson":58},{"id":5,"title":6,"slug":7,"summary":8,"ai_summary":9,"brief":10,"url":11,"image_url":12,"published_at":13,"ingested_at":14,"relevance_score":15,"entities":16,"category_id":27,"category":28,"article_tags":32},"648e2dd1-2d7f-410d-a8d1-3f999861ede3","BVwG - W137 2327171-1","bvwg-w137-2327171-1-0c5fc0","Created page with \"{{COURTdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Austria |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png |Court_Abbrevation=BVwG |Court_Original_Name=Bundesverwaltungsgericht |Court_English_Name=Federal Administrative Court |Court_With_Country=BVwG (Austria) |Case_Number_Name=W137 2327171-1 |ECLI=ECLI:AT:BVWG:2026:W137.2327171.1.00 |Original_Source_Name_1=RIS |Original_Source_Link_1=https:\u002F\u002Fwww.ris.bka.gv.at\u002FDokument.wxe?ResultFunctionToken=ce7470f0-c384-4930-a6d3-cb73a966edef&Position...\" Show changes","An Austrian court has upheld a decision by the Data Protection Authority (DPA) against a controller who published an unredacted court judgment on social media. The judgment named a senior legal counsel in connection with an employment dispute. The DPA found that publishing the judgment without redacting the data subject's name violated her right to secrecy under the Austrian Data Protection Act, as anonymizing her name would have been an equally effective and less intrusive measure.","Austrian court upholds DPA decision against controller for publishing unredacted judgment.","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Findex.php?title=BVwG_-_W137_2327171-1&diff=52568&oldid=0","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Fimages\u002F4\u002F4c\u002FCourts_logo1.png","2026-08-02T15:29:04+00:00","2026-08-02T16:00:12.774331+00:00",7,[17,20,22,24],{"name":18,"type":19},"Facebook","product",{"name":21,"type":19},"Dropbox",{"name":23,"type":19},"Adobe",{"name":25,"type":26},"Austrian Data Protection Authority","vendor","d95477d7-eb04-4fad-a2dc-be1428040ce7",{"id":27,"icon":29,"name":30,"slug":31},null,"Privacy Fines","privacy-fines",[33,38,43,48],{"category":34},{"id":35,"icon":29,"name":36,"slug":37},"3f0f8451-91df-4b6c-9a73-ef3b2509b7f1","GDPR","gdpr",{"category":39},{"id":40,"icon":29,"name":41,"slug":42},"53f9c4b6-8bc6-4964-9169-d09e5cd41d72","Compliance","compliance",{"category":44},{"id":45,"icon":29,"name":46,"slug":47},"614132b8-5837-4952-b8b5-c6c9a32a1d85","Privacy","privacy",{"category":49},{"id":50,"icon":29,"name":51,"slug":52},"c5c77cdb-f7d7-4990-9436-c81dcbff1163","Policy","policy",[],[25,18,21],{"controls":56,"vendors":57},[],[],{"slug":59,"title":60,"body":61,"framework_refs":62,"framework_notes":73},"unredacted-court-judgment-shared-on-social-media-violates-data-privacy-rights","Unredacted Court Judgment Shared on Social Media Violates Data Privacy Rights","A controller published an unredacted court judgment on social media, exposing the full name of a senior legal counsel involved in an employment dispute — a clear violation of her right to secrecy under Austrian data protection law. The root issue was a failure to apply the data minimisation and privacy-by-default principles before sharing the document publicly. The DPA emphasised that anonymising the individual's name would have been an equally effective and less intrusive alternative, meaning the privacy harm was entirely preventable. This case illustrates that sharing legal or official documents does not grant a blanket right to republish personal data contained within them. Organisations and individuals must assess proportionality and necessity before disclosing any document that includes third-party personal information.",[63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72],"GDPR Article 5(1)(c) – Data Minimisation","GDPR Article 5(1)(f) – Integrity and Confidentiality","GDPR Article 25 – Data Protection by Design and by Default","GDPR Article 6 – Lawfulness of Processing","Austrian Data Protection Act (DSG) – Right to Secrecy","NIST SP 800-53 PT-2 – Authority to Process Personally Identifiable Information","NIST SP 800-53 MP-3 – Media Marking","CIS Control 3 – Data Protection","ISO\u002FIEC 27001 Annex A.8.2 – Information Classification","ITIL – Information Security Management (Data Handling Procedures)",{}]