[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$fa-rzoA7GDtlwF42sJK5HyZUdHmL7Wfeusezu47p2fdo":3},{"article":4,"iocs":45,"watch_terms":46,"solutions":47,"lesson":50},{"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":23,"category":24,"article_tags":28},"dc376a92-be70-4123-80bd-09f978a26feb","BVwG - W298 2314952-1","bvwg-w298-2314952-1-e99a06","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=W298 2314952-1 |ECLI=ECLI:AT:BVWG:2026:W298.2314952.1.00 |Original_Source_Name_1=RIS |Original_Source_Link_1=https:\u002F\u002Fwww.ris.bka.gv.at\u002FDokument.wxe?ResultFunctionToken=f5f3528b-c040-4631-946f-06a62d4092b8&Position...\" Show changes","The Austrian Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) ruled that publishing unredacted personal data in legal decisions is unlawful if it's not essential for understanding the decision or serving transparency. In this case, a policeman's professional details were published, making him identifiable. While his health status and religious function were deemed lawfully published, his professional career information violated his data protection rights.","Austrian court rules publication of unredacted personal data in legal decisions unlawful if not necessary.","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Findex.php?title=BVwG_-_W298_2314952-1&diff=53019&oldid=0","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Fimages\u002F4\u002F4c\u002FCourts_logo1.png","2026-09-15T10:09:16+00:00","2026-09-15T12:00:15.337127+00:00",7,[17,20],{"name":18,"type":19},"GDPR","product",{"name":21,"type":22},"Federal Chancellery of Austria","vendor","c5c77cdb-f7d7-4990-9436-c81dcbff1163",{"id":23,"icon":25,"name":26,"slug":27},null,"Policy","policy",[29,34,38,43],{"category":30},{"id":31,"icon":25,"name":32,"slug":33},"2e06f76c-d5b9-4f54-9eef-4d3447b10730","Breaches","breaches",{"category":35},{"id":36,"icon":25,"name":18,"slug":37},"3f0f8451-91df-4b6c-9a73-ef3b2509b7f1","gdpr",{"category":39},{"id":40,"icon":25,"name":41,"slug":42},"614132b8-5837-4952-b8b5-c6c9a32a1d85","Privacy","privacy",{"category":44},{"id":23,"icon":25,"name":26,"slug":27},[],[21,18],{"controls":48,"vendors":49},[],[],{"slug":51,"title":52,"body":53,"framework_refs":54,"framework_notes":65},"austrian-court-rules-unredacted-personal-data-in-legal-decisions-violates-privacy-rights","Austrian Court Rules Unredacted Personal Data in Legal Decisions Violates Privacy Rights","The root cause of this violation was a failure to apply data minimisation principles before publishing legal decisions containing personal information. Publishing a policeman's professional career details was not necessary to serve the transparency purpose of the ruling, making the disclosure disproportionate and unlawful under data protection law. This case highlights that even legitimate public-interest activities like court transparency must be balanced against individuals' rights to privacy. Organisations and public bodies handling personal data in published documents must implement structured redaction processes to ensure only essential information is disclosed.",[55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64],"GDPR Article 5(1)(c) – Data Minimisation","GDPR Article 6 – Lawfulness of Processing","GDPR Article 9 – Processing of Special Categories of Personal Data","GDPR Article 25 – Data Protection by Design and by Default","GDPR Article 35 – Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)","NIST SP 800-53 AC-3 – Access Enforcement","NIST SP 800-53 PL-4 – Rules of Behavior","NIST Privacy Framework PR.DS-P1 – Data minimisation","CIS Control 3 – Data Protection","ISO\u002FIEC 27001:2022 Annex A 5.34 – Privacy and Protection of PII",{}]