OGH - 6Ob148/25w

Summary

The Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) ruled that personal data initially collected for direct marketing purposes is incompatible with credit assessment purposes, violating Article 6(4) of the GDPR. However, the court found that using statistical data, address, and name for credit score calculation was lawful under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, as it was necessary for operating a credit information agency.

Full text

Help OGH - 6Ob148/25w: Difference between revisions From GDPRhub Jump to:navigation, search ← Older editVisualWikitext Revision as of 10:49, 15 September 2026 view sourceLh (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators53 editsTag: Visual edit← Older edit Latest revision as of 12:52, 15 September 2026 view source Lh (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators53 editsTag: Visual edit Line 140: Line 140: == Comment ==== Comment == ''Share your comments here!''See for parallel cases: 6Ob151/25m and 6Ob147/25y. == Further Resources ==== Further Resources == Latest revision as of 12:52, 15 September 2026 OGH - 6Ob148/25w Court: OGH (Austria) Jurisdiction: Austria Relevant Law: Article 6(1)(f) GDPR Article 6(4) GDPR Article 7 CFRArticle 8 CFR Decided: 12.08.2026 Published: Parties: National Case Number/Name: 6Ob148/25w European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2026:0060OB00148.25W.0812.000 Appeal from: Appeal to: Original Language(s): German Original Source: RIS (in German) Initial Contributor: lh The processing of data initially collected for marketing purpose is incompatible with a credit assessment purpose, in violation of Article 6(4) GDPR. Score calculation based on statistics, address and name of the data subject is however lawful. Contents 1 English Summary 1.1 Facts 1.2 Holding 2 Comment 3 Further Resources 4 English Machine Translation of the Decision English Summary Facts The controller runs an address publishing business as well as a credit information agency. As part of its credit assessment activity, it (i) verifies the existence of individuals whose credit score is requested with data like their name and address and (ii) issues credit scores based on data provided by debt collection agencies and on statistics, as payment default data is available on approximately 10% of Austrians. The controller bought personal data about a data subject (name, address, date of birth) from a company (B) that operates in the address publishing and direct marketing industry. The contract provided that this data may only be used for identity verification. While the data subject’s data was initially collected by company B for the purpose of direct marketing, the controller used the personal data in question exclusively for existence verification. At a customer's request, the controller issued a credit assessment of the data subject. The assessment was based on the name, gender and address of the data subject because there was no available data on possible payment defaults of the data subject. The data subject brought an injunction against the controller. The main discussions regarded (i) a violation of the purpose limitation principle: the data was initially collected for direct marketing purposes and later used for credit assessment; (ii) the calculation of the score, which relied solely on statistical data and not on data actually concerning the payment history of the data subject. The court of first instance and second instance rejected the injunction. The court of first instance held that the controller processed the data according to the contract with company B. Moreover, the processing for the original purpose was compatible with the further processing. The court of second instance however held that the further processing was not compatible with the original purpose but that the controller could rely on national law as legal basis. As far as the method of credit assessment was concerned, both courts held that the processing fell under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR because the processing was necessary for operating a credit information agency. The data subject appealed the decision. Holding The court partly upheld the decision of the court of second instance. Pre-emptive injunctions Firstly, the court referred to the case law of the CJEU that provides for the possibility of pre-emptive injunctions under national law. The scope of the subject matter of the injunction under Austrian national law is reduced to the specific violating actions the data subject claims. Therefore, as far as the data subject requests the controller to desist from unlawfully processing their personal data in general, the injunction is inadmissible because the data subject failed to name a specific violation. Purpose limitation The court considered that processing data for an existence check in the context of credit assessments must be regarded as processing data for the purpose of credit assessments. This is true even where the data was not used for calculating the credit score itself. In this case, the controller processed the personal data for a different purpose than the marketing purpose that justified the initial collection. The further processing had significant consequences for the data subject and was not subject to appropriate safeguards pursuant to Article 6(4)(e) GDPR, in violation of Article 6(4) GDPR. Lawfulness of credit scoring calculation in absence of payment default data The court held that processing personal data for the purpose of credit assessments was legitimate and that the calculation method used was necessary. As there is available data on payment defaults on only 10% of Austrians, credit assessments of the majority of the population would otherwise not be possible. Such a calculation was also in line with data subjects expectations. Consequently, the assessment of a credit score on the basis of general data in the absence of data on possible payment defaults was held lawful under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. The court found a violation of the principle of purpose limitation but held that the credit assessment in the absence of payment data was lawful. Comment See for parallel cases: 6Ob151/25m and 6Ob147/25y. Further Resources Share blogs or news articles here! English Machine Translation of the Decision The decision below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details. Heading The Supreme Court, acting as the court of appeal, with Senate President Dr. Hofer-Zeni-Rennhofer presiding and Justices Hon.-Prof. Dr. Faber, Mag. Pertmayr, Dr. Weber, and Mag. Nigl, LL.M., as additional judges, heard the appeal filed by the plaintiff, D*, represented by Mag. Robert Haupt, LL.M., attorney at law in Vienna, against the defendant C* GmbH, FN *, with representation provided by Baker McKenzie Rechtsanwälte LLP & Co KG in Vienna, regarding an injunction, on the plaintiff’s appeal against the judgement of the Vienna Higher Regional Court, acting as the court of appeals, dated August 30, August 2023, Case No. 12 R 25/23v-32, which affirmed the judgement of the Vienna Regional Court for Civil Matters dated December 28, 2022, Case No. 2 Cg 112/21m-22, was affirmed, was decided in a closed session, and the Court has rightly ruled as follows: Decision 1. The proceedings, which were suspended by order of August 27, 2024, in Case No. 6 Ob 217/23i, are resumed. 2. The plaintiff’s petition for review is granted in part. The contested judgement, which otherwise remains unchanged, is amended to the effect that the decision regarding point 1(2) of the first-instance court’s ruling shall read as follows: “The defendant is ordered to refrain, effective immediately, from granting third parties further access to the ‘Identity and Creditworthiness Database’ with respect to the plaintiff’s data, as long as the plaintiff’s data is being unlawfully processed by the defendant’s data providers, who continue to transmit to the defendant at least the name, address, and date of birth (of the plaintiff), which they originally collected for the purposes of address listing and direct marketing, to the defendant, who subsequently processes this data for credit assessment purposes pursuant to § 152 GewO 1994.”“The defendant is ordered to refrain, effective immediately, from granting third parties further access to the ‘Identity and Creditworthiness Database’ with res

Entities