AustriaGDPR Article 22, Automated Decision-Making in Austria
Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Arts. 13(2)(f), 14(2)(g), 15(1)(h) and 22
In force since .
A data subject rights rule binding public and private bodies.
- Audit expectation
- none
What it requires
- Where a decision based solely on automated processing about a person in Austria rests on a contract with them or on their explicit consent, put suitable safeguards in place, at least the right to obtain human intervention, to express their point of view and to contest the decision, under General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Article 22(3).NIST Privacy FrameworkCT.DM-P10
- Do not subject a person in Austria to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, that produces legal effects concerning them or similarly significantly affects them, unless the decision is necessary for entering into or performing a contract with them, is authorised by Union or Member State law that also lays down suitable measures to safeguard their rights, or rests on their explicit consent, under GDPR Article 22(1) and (2).NIST Privacy FrameworkCT.DM-P10
- Do not base a solely automated decision with legal or similarly significant effects on a person in Austria on the special categories of personal data in GDPR Article 9(1), unless they gave explicit consent or the processing is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest on the basis of proportionate Union or Member State law, and suitable measures to safeguard their rights are in place, under GDPR Article 22(4).NIST Privacy FrameworkCT.PO-P1
- If you make solely automated decisions about a person in Austria of the kind GDPR Article 22(1) and (4) describe, including profiling, tell them so and give them meaningful information about the logic involved and the significance and envisaged consequences for them: when you collect their data, within the Article 14(3) period where you obtained it from someone else, and in answering their access request, under GDPR Articles 13(2)(f), 14(2)(g) and 15(1)(h).NIST Privacy FrameworkCM.AW-P1
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text. Also read by: Datenschutzbehörde (Austrian Data Protection Authority) (guidance, recorded ); Case C-634/21 SCHUFA Holding (Scoring), judgment of the Court of Justice of (First Chamber) (recorded ).
In the frameworks
- NIST Privacy Framework
- CT.PO-P1Policies, processes, and procedures for authorizing data processing (e.g., organizational decisions, individual consent), revoking authorizations, and maintaining authorizations are established and in place.
- CT.DM-P10Stakeholder privacy preferences are included in algorithmic design objectives and outputs are evaluated against these preferences.
- CM.AW-P1Mechanisms (e.g., notices, internal or public reports) for communicating data processing purposes, practices, associated privacy risks, and options for enabling individuals’ data processing preferences and requests are established and in place.
Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework, and in the NIST Privacy Framework, line by line beside each duty above. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law
Who enforces it
Settledness
- As of
- Case link
- https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62021CJ0634
- Guidance link
- https://www.dsb.gv.at/faqs/glaeubigerschutz-kreditauskunfteien
- Case citation
- Case C-634/21 SCHUFA Holding (Scoring), judgment of the Court of Justice of (First Chamber)
- Guidance body
- Datenschutzbehörde (Austrian Data Protection Authority)
- Open questions
- Which exception in Article 22(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 allows a credit information agency in Austria to base a credit score on automated processing, given that the Datenschutzbehörde says the agency can no longer rely on legitimate interest alone?
What it makes you log
Logging duty
Article 22 gives a right not to be subject to a solely automated decision and requires safeguards where the decision rests on a contract or consent. It requires no log or record of the decisions.
- Kind
- None
- As of
What this law does
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Article 22 gives a person in Austria the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, that produces legal effects or similarly significantly affects them, unless the decision is necessary for a contract with them, authorised by a law that safeguards their rights, or based on their explicit consent.
Where it rests on a contract or consent, the controller must at least let the person obtain human intervention, express their point of view and contest the decision.
Under Article 22(4), such a decision may not rest on the special categories of personal data in Article 9(1) unless the person gave explicit consent or the processing is necessary for reasons of substantial public interest on the basis of proportionate Union or Member State law, with suitable safeguards in place.
Articles 13(2)(f), 14(2)(g) and 15(1)(h) require the controller to tell the person that such decision-making takes place, with meaningful information about the logic involved and its significance and envisaged consequences for them, at collection, within the Article 14(3) period where the data came from another source, and on an access request.
The third main part of the Datenschutzgesetz applies, under Section 36(1), to processing by competent authorities for the purposes of preventing, investigating or prosecuting criminal offenses and for national security.
On , in a case on an access request about a credit score under Article 15(1)(h), the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Supreme Administrative Court) held that general macroeconomic statistics used as parameters in a credit score are in principle not personal data (Ra 2026/04/0001).
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app makes high-risk automated decisions.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .