This case is part of a series of complaints on incomplete answers to access requests (a very common problem). These cases were also intended to develop further information on the functioning of the EU cooperation mechanism. So far, only one case has been decided.
| Date | Summary |
|---|---|
| 13.09.2023 | DAZN provides recipients contact data as ordered by BVwG |
| 06.09.2023 | Decision by BVwG Won re Art 15(1)(c) GDPR |
| 30.08.2023 | BVwG sends yet another submission by DAZN Again, the BVwG did not ask us for another submission so we expect a decision soon. |
| 22.08.2023 | BVwG sends another submission by DAZN BVwG did not ask us for another submission so we expect a decision soon. |
| 10.08.2023 | DAZN again provides some additional info |
| 18.07.2023 | Court asks DAZN to provide additional information ... in light of CJEU C-579/21 |
| 06.04.2023 | Letter to BVwG We argue more details are needed in order to meaningfully exercise GDPR rights |
| 30.03.2023 | DAZN names data recipients |
| 23.03.2023 | BVwG continues procedure on data recipients |
| 22.12.2022 | BVwG stays procedure for CJEU Court waits until CJEU has decided in C-154/21 |
| 23.09.2022 | Letter to BVwG Sent ahead vie email, then registered letter. Requesting BVwG to not apply § 24(6) DSG and issue declaratory decision. Mentioning ongoing violation of Article 15(1)(c) GDPR (no concrete recipients) |
| 09.09.2022 | Notification by BVwG We have 2 weeks to assess DAZN's reply to the SAR and to explain, why we still consider that the complainant's right under Article 15 GDPR is still violated. |
| 06.09.2022 | New SAR reply by DAZN as requested by BVwG |
| 09.08.2022 | BVwG asked controller to give data subject access This is not yet a decision on our inactivity complaint. The BVwG seems to offer the controller a chance to fulfil the SAR within 4 weeks, to then apply § 24(6) DSG and end the procedure without a formal decision. |
| 27.04.2022 | noyb Call with BVwG BVwG has received our inactivity complaint Inacitvity complaint directly filed with BVwG due to the DSB ignoring it for over 3 months and refuses to send it. Complaint has been received by the BVwG. |
| 19.04.2022 | noyb informs DSB an appeal has been submitted directly with the BVWG |
| 13.04.2022 | Refiling inactivity complaint dirctly to BVwG Sent the Säumnisbeschwerde to the BVwG directly via registered letter, as the DSB is not wordwaring it. |
| 07.04.2022 | BVwG responds |
| 04.04.2022 | DSB does not acknowledge receipt of the appeal noyb enquire further with BVwG |
| 10.12.2021 | No response is given so noyb files another appeal with DSB |
| 13.09.2021 | noyb follows up on previous request |
| 10.06.2021 | noyb asks the DSB to continue the investigation |
| 25.11.2020 | Decision of the Federal Administrative Court BVwG |
| 18.09.2020 | ICO communication Content not clear |
| 08.07.2020 | DSB admits that is has no case number due to internal error and forwards the case to Federal Admin Court |
| 04.06.2020 | noyb appeals on inactivity |
| 23.01.2020 | noyb writes to DSB on several issues |
| 23.01.2020 | noyb writes to DSB on several issues |
| 05.06.2019 | noyb seeks update from DSB |
| 26.04.2019 | DSB responds and ensures further checks |
| 15.04.2019 | noyb seeks update from DSB |
| 13.02.2019 | noyb enquires on whether no suspension notice was issued in the present case also no case nr was assigned to the complaint |
| 18.01.2019 | Complaint filed |