# BVwG - W291 2298748-1

- Type: Case Law
- Source: Federal Administrative Court
- Date: 2025-10-31
- Original: https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=BVwG_-_W291_2298748-1
- Canonical: https://overview.legal/posts/49235
- Topics: Controllers, Material scope (GDPR), Accuracy, Personal Data, Right to Rectification, Supervisory Authorities, Processing Agreement, Law Enforcement, AI and Machine Learning

## Summary

Facts — A data subject wished to be addressed in a gender-neutral way and claimed they were misgendered by two companies (the controllers) in profile settings, tickets, and train announcements. They initially sent a tweet to one of the involved controllers asking whether gender-neutral options would be available and later filed a complaint with the Equal Treatment Commission and the Austrian Data Protection Authority (DSB), claiming a violation of their right under Article 16 GDPR. The DPA rejected the complaint, arguing that the data subject had not submitted a formal request for rectification to the controllers. The complainant then appealed to the Federal Administrative Court. Holding — The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no violation of the GDPR because the data subject had not submitted a formal request for rectification. Article 16 GDPR requires a clear and specific request for correction, and vague or indirect statements, such as tweets or general demands for a change of the controller’s practice, do not satisfy this requirement. During the proceedings, it became clear that the data subject’s statements, primarily concerned the implementation of a future change of the controller’s practice to allow a gender-neutral option for all users, rather than a concrete request to correct their own personal data. In addition, some corrections had already been made to the data subject’s profile and invoices, while oral misgendering in trains and via loudspeaker announcements was found to fall outside the scope of the GDPR, as such statements were not stored in any personal data filing system. Finally, the Court noted that the minutes of the Equal Treatment Commission hearing could not be relied upon as full proof, as the hearing had been recorded only in audio form and not documented in accordance with the requirements of Austrian administrative procedure law (AVG). Statements made during the Equal Treatment Commission proceedings therefore did not constitute a formal exercise of the right to rectification under Article 16 GDPR.

## Full text

Decision Date October 31, 2025 Legal Norm General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG) §14 General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG) §15 Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG) Art. 133 para. 4 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Art. 12 para. 3 GDPR Art. 16 (General Administrative Procedure Act/General Administrative Procedure Act) §16 General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG) §14 today: General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG) §14 valid from January 1, 2008, last amended by Federal Law Gazette I No. 5/2008; General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG) §14 valid from March 1, 2004 to December 31, 2007, last amended by Federal Law Gazette I No. 10/2004; General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG) §14 valid from April 20, 2002 to February 29, 2004, last amended by Federal Law Gazette I No. 65/2002; General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG) §14 valid from January 1, 1999 to April 19, 2002, last amended by Federal Law Gazette I No. 158/1998 General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG) § 14 valid from February 1, 1991 to December 31, 1998 General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG) § 15 now General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG) § 15 valid from February 1, 1991 Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG) Art. 133 now Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG) Art. 133 valid from January 1, 2019 to May 24, 2018, last amended by Federal Law Gazette I No. 138/2017 Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG) Art. 133 valid from January 1, 2019, last amended by Federal Law Gazette I No. 22/2018 Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG) Art. 133 valid from May 25, 2018 to December 31, 2018, last amended by Federal Law Gazette I No. 22/2018 Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG) Art. 133 valid from Article 133 of the Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG) valid from 1 August 2014 to 24 May 2018, last amended by Federal Law Gazette I No. 164/2013; Article 133 valid from 1 January 2014 to 31 July 2014, last amended by Federal Law Gazette I No. 51/2012; Article 133 valid from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2013, last amended by Federal Law Gazette I No. 100/2003; Article 133 valid from 1 January 1975 to 31 December 2003, last amended by Federal Law Gazette No. 444/1974; Article 133 valid from 25 December 1946 to 31 December 1974, last amended by Federal Law Gazette No. 211/1946 B-VG Art. 133 valid from December 19, 1945 to December 24, 1946, last amended by Federal Law Gazette No. 4/1945. B-VG Art. 133 valid from January 3, 1930 to June 30, 1934. Judgment W291 2298748-1/19E IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC! The Federal Administrative Court, composed of Judge Mag.a Riedler as presiding judge and lay judges Mag. Auer, MBL and MMag. KALINA, as assessor, on the appeal of XXXX against the decision of the Data Protection Authority of August 2, 2024, file no. XXXX, has ruled as follows: The Federal Administrative Court, composed of Judge Mag. RIEDLER as presiding judge and lay judges Mag. AUER, MBL, and MMag. KALINA as assessors, has ruled as follows on the appeal of [name omitted] against the decision of the Data Protection Authority of August 2, 2024, file no. [name omitted]: A) The appeal is dismissed as unfounded. B) Revision is not permitted pursuant to Article 133, paragraph 4, of the Federal Constitutional Law. Text Reasons for the Decision: I. Procedural History: [name omitted] Procedural History: 1. By letter dated November 23, 2023, amended on November 24, 2023, the complainant filed a data protection complaint with the Data Protection Authority alleging a violation of the right to rectification under Article 16 GDPR by XXXX (hereinafter: Party 1) and XXXX (hereinafter: Party 2). `` ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] hereinafter: Party 1 (hereinafter: Party 1) and XXXX (hereinafter: Party 2) ] ] ] ] ] ] hereinafter: Party 1 (hereinafter: Party 2) ] ] ] ] ] hereinafter: Party 2 (hereinafter: Party 2) ] ... 2. By decision dated August 2, 2024, the Data Protection Authority dismissed the data protection complaint as unfounded, stating essentially and in summary that the complainant had not submitted a request for rectification to the parties now involved. The right to rectification under Article 16 GDPR, however, is a right requiring a formal application. From an objective standpoint, it was in no way apparent that the complainant had intended to assert their right to rectification within the meaning of Article 16 GDPR. Upon objective consideration, it is in no way apparent that the complainant intended to assert its right to rectification within the meaning of Article 16 GDPR. 3. By letter dated August 28, 2024, the complainant filed a timely appeal against the decision, arguing essentially that it was incorrect that it had not submitted a request. 4. By letter dated August 29, 2024, the Data Protection Authority submitted the appeal against the decision, along with the relevant administrative documents, to the Federal Administrative Court. 5. The complainant's appeal against the decision was transmitted to the other parties involved on September 9, 2024, and they were given four weeks to submit their comments. 6. The submission from the Data Protection Authority was sent to the participating parties and the appellant on September 25, 2024, to ensure their right to be heard, and they were given two weeks to comment. 7. By letter dated October 2, 2024, the participating parties submitted a joint statement. 8. By letter dated October 14, 2024, the appellant submitted a statement. 9. By letter dated January 16, 2025, the Equal Treatment Commission, at the request of the Federal Administrative Court, stated that the hearings before Senate III of the Equal Treatment Commission would be recorded and transcribed. Therefore, an original transcript with the signatures of those present did not exist. The transcript of the hearing of February 7, 2023, was sent to the Federal Administrative Court, and it was reported that no objections had been raised. In a letter dated January 16, 2025, the Equal Treatment Commission informed the Federal Administrative Court, at its request, that hearings before the Commission's Third Senate were recorded and transcribed. Therefore, an original transcript bearing the signatures of those present did not exist. The transcript of the hearing held on February 7, 2023, was submitted to the Federal Administrative Court, and it was reported that no objections had been raised. 10. In an email dated January 21, 2025, the Equal Treatment Commission informed the Federal Administrative Court, at its request, that a summary or similar document containing the signatures of those present did not exist. 11. On March 11, 2025, the Federal Administrative Court held an oral hearing. 12. Following the filing of a motion to set a deadline, the Administrative Court of Appeal, by procedural order of August 18, 2025, instructed the Federal Administrative Court to issue the decision within three months and to submit to the Administrative Court of Appeal a certified copy, transcript, or copy thereof, as well as a copy of the proof of service of the decision on the applicant, or to state why there was no breach of the duty to decide. II. The Federal Administrative Court considered: 1. Findings: 1.1. The appellant wishes to be addressed in a gender-neutral manner. The appellant experiences the attribution of masculinity as an attack on their person. In a tweet dated April 23, 2022, the complainant addressed co-defendant 1. The complainant refers to a tweet by another user which reads: "A non-binary person sued the railway and won. [Link to an article in newspaper XXXX]". The complainant then wrote the following tweet to co-defendant 1 under a pseudonym: "Are you changing this where you are, or do we also have to go to court in Austria?" The complainant then wrote the following tweet, under a pseudonym, addressed to the co-defendant party 1: “Are you changing this where you are, or do we also have to go to court in Austria?” 1.2. The complainant initiated proceedings in this matter before the Equal Treatment Commission, XXXX. 1.2. The complainant initiated proceedings in this matter before the Equal Treatment Commission, Roman numeral 40. The application of the appellant, dated November 16, 2022, entitled "Application for review of violation of the principle of equal treatment," addressed to the Equal Treatment Commission, Senate III, states the following: "In an inquiry dated April 23, XXXX stated that a gender-neutral form of address was being developed (https://XXXX). Regrettably, more than six months later, it is still not possible to select anything other than 'Mr.' or 'Ms.' in the profile settings." "In an inquiry dated April 23, Roman 40 stated that a gender-neutral form of address was being developed (https://roman 40). Regrettably, more than six months later, it is still not possible to select anything other than 'Mr.' or 'Ms.'" Six months later, it is still not possible to select anything other than "Mr." or "Ms." in the profile settings. Therefore, I received my [XXXX] and my upgrade to the ticket [XXXX] with the title "Mr.", which has caused me intangible harm. I experience the "attribution of masculinity" by [XXXX] and [XXXX] as a personal attack, leading to significant psychological distress. Therefore, I received my [Roman numeral] [40] and my upgrade to the ticket [40] with the title "Mr.", which has caused me intangible harm. I experience the "attribution of masculinity" by [Roman numeral] [40] as a personal attack, leading to significant psychological distress. I request the initiation of an investigation by the Equal Treatment Commission to establish that I have been discriminated against on the basis of gender in access to goods and services available to the public. 1.3. The proceedings of the Equal Treatment Commission, and in particular the meeting of February 7, 2023, concerned "the form of address." The meeting of February 7, 2023, did not address the booking of a sleeper car. At the meeting of February 7, 2023, the complainant stated that they did not wish to provide any information regarding their form of address or gender, and certainly not any false information, regarding their use of the service, which they were required to do. During the hearing, the appellant stated, for example: “Yes, I bought the ticket online, and it’s a mandatory field there (…) you need to enter one of these gender options […] If you don’t fill in this field, it doesn’t work. […] I pointed this out, but it should have been known at that point. So, the idea that I’m now the trigger for this software change strikes me as absurd.” The appellant’s lawyer stated: “In this regard, reference can also be made to the decision of XXXX, which ordered a six-month implementation period and simultaneously awarded damages in the amount of €1,000.” The complainant stated at the end of the hearing: “This is a very tedious process when you are constantly addressed using a binary gender. The XXXX is yet another thing you have to invest a bit of money in, and when another email arrives with ‘Dear Sir,’ it is, of course, a very frustrating experience. Aside from the fact that I have to travel with an incorrect gender on this card, of course. But I would like to put an end to this situation and that is why I contacted the XXXX. This situation is essentially being forced upon me and constantly reinforced.” 1.3. The proceedings of the Equal Treatment Commission, and in particular the hearing of February 7, 2023, concerned “the form of address.” The hearing on February 7, 2023, did not concern the sleeper car booking. The complainant stated at the hearing on February 7, 2023, that they did not want to provide any information regarding their title or gender, and certainly not any false information, for using the service, which they were nevertheless required to do. At the hearing, the complainant stated, for example: “Yes, I bought the ticket online, and it’s a mandatory field there (…) you need one of these gender fields […] If you don’t fill in this field, it doesn’t work. […] I have now pointed this out, but it should have been known at that point. So, the idea that I am now the trigger for this software change strikes me as absurd.” The complainant’s lawyer stated: “In this regard, reference can also be made to the decision of Roman 40, which ordered a six-month implementation period, along with an award of damages in the amount of €1,000.” The complainant stated at the end of the hearing: “This is a very tedious process when you're constantly addressed with a binary gender. Roman numeral 40 is yet another thing you have to invest a bit of money in, and when you receive another email addressed to ‘Dear Sir,’ it's naturally a very frustrating experience. Not to mention that I have to use this card with an incorrect gender designation, of course. But I would like to put an end to this situation, which is why I contacted Roman numeral 40. This situation is essentially being forced upon me and constantly reinforced.” The complainant stated at the hearing that the co-defendant should create the option for the complainant to either not specify a gender or to use a neutral salutation. The central point of contention was that a change or correction to a neutral salutation was not technically possible. The complainant did not refer to any specific legal provision at the hearing. The complainant stated that the co-defendant should create the option for the complainant to either not specify a gender or to use a neutral salutation. For the complainant, it makes little difference whether XXXX changes the form of address only for the complainant or for all parties. The complainant wanted and stated at this hearing that "the form of address" be changed and sought to end the attribution of the incorrect gender. For the complainant, it makes little difference whether Roman numeral 40 changes the form of address only for the complainant or for all parties. The complainant wanted and stated at this hearing that "the form of address" be changed and sought to end the attribution of the incorrect gender. 1.4. The complainant was addressed as "Mrs." once and as "Mr." once on the train on February 25, 2025, and February 27, 2025. The complainant was no longer incorrectly referred to in written submissions. Announcements by the co-participating party 1 were sometimes made using the binary form. According to the complainant, the other parties involved have not complied with their implementation regarding the correct form of address in personal salutations on trains and in train announcements. 1.5. The complainant's data concerning the form of address stored in their profile has been changed. Credit notes and invoices have been corrected. 1.6. The complainant's statements at the hearing on February 7, 2023, were understood by witness XXXX as a request for a system change in the sales system regarding gender information and the form of address. The system change should allow for the option of specifying a third or neutral gender. The witness is a lawyer with the second party involved (Head of Legal) and appeared as their representative at the hearing on February 7, 2023. In her opinion, the correction of specific, personal data was not the issue. The statements made by the appellant at the hearing on February 7, 2023, were understood by witness Roman numeral 40 as a request for a system change in the sales system regarding gender selection and salutation. The system change was intended to allow for the option of specifying a third or neutral gender. The witness is a lawyer with the co-defendant party 2 (Head of Legal) and appeared as their representative at the hearing on February 7, 2023. In her opinion, the correction of specific, personal data was not the subject of discussion. 1.7. The statements made by the appellant at the hearing on February 7, 2023, were understood by witness XXXX as a request for a system change. He did not get the impression that the appellant was requesting a correction of their data record. The witness was under the impression that the discussion concerned changes to future hiring options. The issue at hand was the implementation of a gender-neutral salutation option in the sales system. The witness works for Party 1, one of the parties involved. His role in the hearing before the Equal Treatment Commission was primarily to advance the technical implementation. 1.7. The witness interpreted the complainant's statements at the hearing on February 7, 2023, as a request for a system change. He did not get the impression that the complainant was requesting a correction of its data record. The witness was under the impression that the issue concerned changing the settings options for the future. The issue at hand was the implementation of a gender-neutral salutation option in the sales system. The witness works for Party 1, one of the parties involved. His role in the hearing before the Equal Treatment Commission was primarily to advance the technical implementation. 1.8. The questioning before Senate III on February 7, 2023, was recorded. A summary record with the signatures of those present at the meeting of February 7, 2023, does not exist. 1.8. The hearing before Senate Roman III on February 7, 2023, was recorded. A summary record with the signatures of those present at the meeting of February 7, 2023, does not exist. 2. Evaluation of Evidence: 2.1. The findings that the complainant wishes to be addressed in a gender-neutral manner and experiences the attribution of masculinity as a personal attack are evident from her submissions. The findings regarding the tweet of April 23, 2022, are evident from the contents of the file (see letter of November 24, 2023). 2.2. The application and the initiation of the proceedings concerning the Equal Treatment Commission are evident, in particular, from the corresponding document on file. 2.3. The subject of the proceedings before the Equal Treatment Commission, and in particular the hearing of February 7, 2023, arises from the uncontested statement made by the complainant (see the minutes of the hearing, p. 9). The complainant stated that the hearing on February 7, 2023, did not concern the booking of a sleeper car (minutes of the hearing, p. 11). The finding that the complainant stated he did not wish to provide any information regarding the form of address or gender, and certainly not any false information regarding the use of the service—which the complainant was nevertheless required to do—is based on the complainant's own statements. In this regard, the complainant was asked whether he could still recall the specific wording or phrasing with which he had communicated his request to the other parties involved (see minutes of the hearing, p. 6). The statements made by the complainant and his legal counsel during the hearing, as quoted above, can be found in the minutes of the hearing.It is noted that the appellant was requested during the oral hearing to mark the relevant passages in the minutes of February 7, 2023, that reflected their request. It is further noted that only the marked statements of the appellant and their attorney were included, as only these could constitute a request from the appellant. The findings that the appellant stated during the hearing that the co-defendant should create the option for the appellant to leave the address blank or use a neutral form of address, and that a central point of contention was the technical feasibility of changing or correcting the form of address to a neutral one, are derived from the appellant's statements in response to the question of what they believed they should have said to the co-defendants during the hearing on February 7, 2023, that needed to be corrected (see the minutes of the hearing, p. 7). The fact that the complainant did not rely on a specific legal provision is based on the information provided during the oral hearing (see the minutes of the hearing, p. 6). The fact that it makes little difference to the complainant whether the co-defendant changes the form of address only for the complainant or for all parties is based on its statements in this regard (see the minutes of the hearing, p. 8). The fact that the complainant wanted and stated during the hearing that "the form of address" be changed and that it desired an end to the attribution of the incorrect gender is likewise based on its statements (see the minutes of the hearing, pp. 8-9). 2.3. The subject matter of the proceedings before the Equal Treatment Commission, and in particular of the hearing of February 7, 2023, is evident from the complainant's uncontested statement (see the minutes of the hearing, p. 9). The appellant stated that the meeting on February 7, 2023, did not concern the booking of a sleeper car (Proceedings Minutes, Session 11). The finding that the appellant stated he did not wish to provide any information regarding his or her title or gender, and certainly not any false information regarding the use of the service—which he claimed he was obligated to do—is based on the appellant's own statements. In this regard, he was asked whether he could still recall the specific wording or phrasing with which he communicated his request to the other parties involved (see Proceedings Minutes, Session 6). The statements made by the appellant and his or her lawyer during the meeting were recorded in the Proceedings Minutes. It is noted that the appellant was asked during the oral proceedings to mark the relevant passages in the minutes of February 7, 2023, that reflected his or her request. It is noted that only the highlighted statements of the appellant and their attorney were adopted, as only these could contain a request from the appellant. The findings that the appellant stated in the hearing that the co-defendant should create the option for the appellant to have no address or a neutral salutation, and that the central point of contention was that no change or correction to a neutral salutation was technically possible, are based on the appellant's statements in response to the question of what the appellant believed they should have said to the co-defendants in the hearing on February 7, 2023, which should be corrected (see VH minutes, session 7). The fact that the appellant did not rely on a specific legal provision is based on the statements made in the oral hearing (see VH minutes, session 6). The fact that it makes little difference to the complainant whether the co-defendant changes the form of address only for the complainant or for all parties is based on their statements in this regard (see VH minutes, session 8). The fact that the complainant wanted and stated in the hearing that "the form of address" be changed and that they wished to end the attribution of the incorrect gender is likewise based on their statements (see VH minutes, session 8f). 2.4. The fact that the complainant was addressed as "Ms." and "Mr." on the train on February 25, 2025, and February 27, 2025, is based on their uncontested statements in this regard (see VH minutes, p. 10). The fact that the complainant was not incorrectly identified in written submissions is also based on the complainant's own statements (see the minutes of the hearing, pp. 10 and 14). In the opinion of the adjudicating panel, the letters of January 16, 2024, and January 22, 2024, are addressed to the data protection authority, and the complainant's legal representative's argument in this regard is not accepted. The finding regarding the announcements is likewise based on the complainant's own statements (see the minutes of the hearing, p. 11). The complainant's assertion that the other parties involved failed to comply with the implementation requirements regarding the correct form of address in personal greetings on trains and in railway announcements is based on the complainant's own statements (minutes of the hearing, p. 11). 2.4. The fact that the complainant was addressed as "Ms." and "Mr." on the train on February 25, 2025, and February 27, 2025, is based on her own unobjectionable statements regarding this matter (see VH minutes, session 10). The fact that the complainant was not incorrectly referred to in written submissions is likewise based on the complainant's own statements (see VH minutes, sessions 10 and 14). In the opinion of the adjudicating panel, the letters of January 16, 2024, and January 22, 2024, are addressed to the data protection authority, and the complainant's legal representative's arguments on this point are not accepted. The finding regarding the announcements is likewise based on the complainant's own statements (see VH minutes, session 11). The appellant's assertion that the other parties involved have failed to comply with the implementation requirements regarding the correct form of address in personal greetings on trains and during announcements is based on the information provided (VH minutes, session 11). 2.5. The change to the data stored in the profile is based on the appellant's statements (see VH minutes, p. 14) and is also consistent with the statement from XXXX dated December 5, 2023 (p. 2). The correction of credit notes and invoices is evident from the relevant documents in the administrative file and is also supported by the appellant's statement (see VH minutes, p. 10). As already stated, the Senate does not share the concerns raised by the appellant's legal representative in this regard. 2.5. The fact that the data stored in the profile was changed is based on the appellant's statements (see Administrative Court Minutes, Session 14) and is also consistent with the statement of the Roman numeral 40 dated December 5, 2023, Session 2). The fact that credit notes and invoices were corrected is evident from the relevant documents in the administrative file and is also evident from the appellant's statements (see Administrative Court Minutes, Session 10). As already stated, the Senate does not share the concerns expressed by the appellant's legal representative in this regard. 2.6. The fact that the appellant's statements at the hearing on February 7, 2023, were understood by witness XXXX as a request for a system change is based on her unobjectionable statements in this regard (see Administrative Court Minutes, p. 15). Her expertise and role during the hearing are evident from her statements in this regard (see Administrative Court Minutes, p. 17). That, in her opinion, the correction of specific, personal data was not an issue is evident from her statements (VH transcript, p. 22). 2.6. That the appellant's statements at the hearing on February 7, 2023, were understood by witness Roman numeral 40 as a request for a system change is based on her own uncontroversial statements in this regard (see VH transcript, session 15). Her expertise and function during the hearing are evident from her statements in this regard (see VH transcript, session 17). That, in her opinion, the correction of specific, personal data was not an issue is evident from her statements (VH transcript, session 22). 2.7. That the appellant's statements at the hearing on February 7, 2023, were understood by witness XXXX as a request for a system change is evident from his statements (see, for example, VH transcript, p. 20). That he did not have the impression that the complaining party had requested a correction of its data record is evident from his uncontroversial statements (see VH transcript, p. 20). The witness's impression that the matter concerned changing the hiring options for the future is also evident from his statements (see VH transcript, p. 21). That the matter at hand concerned implementing the option of a gender-neutral form of address in the sales system is also evident from his statements (see VH transcript, pp. 21 and 18). His activity and his role in the meeting are evident from his statements (see VH transcript, pp. 18-19). 2.7. That the complaining party's statements at the meeting on February 7, 2023, were understood by witness Roman numeral 40 as a request for a system change is evident from his statements (see, for example, VH transcript, meeting 20). That he did not have the impression that the complaining party had requested a correction of its data record is evident from his uncontroversial statements (see VH transcript, session 20). The witness's impression that the matter concerned changing the hiring options for the future is also evident from his statements (see VH transcript, session 21). That the matter at hand concerned implementing an option for gender-neutral address in the sales system is also evident from his statements (see VH transcript, sessions 21 and 18). His activity and his role in the session are evident from his statements (see VH transcript, sessions 18 et seq.). 2.8. The findings in section 1.8 are based on the relevant documents in the court file. 3. Legal Assessment: Regarding A) 3.1. Legal bases in excerpts: Article 12 GDPR – Transparent information, communication and modalities for exercising the rights of the data subject (…) (3) The controller shall provide the data subject with information on the measures taken in response to a request pursuant to Articles 15 to 22 without undue delay and in any event within one month of receipt of the request. This period may be extended by a further two months where necessary, taking into account the complexity and number of requests. The controller shall inform the data subject of any extension of this period, together with the reasons for the delay, within one month of receipt of the request. Where the data subject makes the request electronically, the information shall be provided electronically where possible, unless the data subject requests otherwise. (…) Article 16 GDPR – Right to rectification: The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller without undue delay the rectification of inaccurate personal data concerning him or her. Taking into account the purposes of the processing, the data subject shall have the right to have incomplete personal data completed, including by means of providing a supplementary statement. Article 16 GDPR – Right to rectification: The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller without undue delay the rectification of inaccurate personal data concerning him or her. Taking into account the purposes of the processing, the data subject shall have the right to have incomplete personal data completed, including by means of providing a supplementary statement. Section 16 of the Equal Treatment Commission Act (GBK/GAW Act) – Application of the General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG): Sections 6(1), 7, 13, 14 to 16, 17 to 22, 32, and 33, as well as – in accordance with Sections 12(12), 26(12), and 38(3) of the Equal Treatment Act – Sections 45 and 46 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG), Federal Law Gazette No. 51/1991, shall apply to the proceedings before the Senates of the Equal Treatment Commission. Insofar as sovereign powers are regulated therein, these powers do not accrue to the Equal Treatment Commission. The provisions of Sections 39a, 52 paragraphs 2 to 4, 53, and 53b of the General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG) apply to the engagement of interpreters and translators, with the costs to be borne ex officio. Sections 6 paragraph 1, 7, 13, 14 to 16, 17 to 22, 32, and 33, as well as – in accordance with Sections 12 paragraph 12, 26 paragraph 12, and 38 paragraph 3 of the Equal Treatment Act – Sections 45 and 46 of the AVG (Federal Law Gazette No. 51 of 1991), apply to the proceedings before the Senates of the Equal Treatment Commission. Insofar as sovereign powers are regulated therein, these do not accrue to the Equal Treatment Commission. The provisions of Sections 39a, 52 paragraphs 2 to 4, 53, and 53b of the General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG) apply to the engagement of interpreters and translators, with the costs to be borne ex officio. Section 14 AVG – Minutes: Section 14 AVG – Minutes: (1) Oral submissions by parties must be recorded in writing, if necessary, in accordance with their essential content. Minutes of proceedings (proceedings) must be drafted in such a way that, even if all extraneous information is omitted, the course and content of the proceedings are accurately and comprehensibly represented. (2) Every set of minutes must also contain: 1. The place, time, and subject matter of the official act and, if previous official acts relating to the same matter have already been carried out, a brief summary of the current status of the case, if necessary; 2. The name of the authority and the names of the person in charge of the official act and any other participating official bodies, the parties present and their representatives, as well as any witnesses and experts heard. (3) The record must be presented to the persons heard or otherwise involved for review or read aloud, unless they waive this right. If an audio recording device is used (paragraph 7) or the record is created electronically, its content may also be reproduced in another way. The person in charge of the official act may also refrain from reproducing the record without waiving this right; in this case, the persons involved may request service of a copy until the conclusion of the official act and raise objections within two weeks of service regarding alleged incompleteness or inaccuracy of the record. If an audio recording is used (paragraph 7) or the record is created electronically, its contents may also be reproduced in another way. The person conducting the official proceedings may also refrain from reproducing the record without waiving this right; in this case, the persons involved may request a copy until the conclusion of the official proceedings and raise objections within two weeks of delivery regarding alleged incompleteness or inaccuracies in the record. (4) Nothing of substance may be erased, added to, or altered in the recorded document. Crossed-out passages must remain legible. Significant additions or objections from the persons involved regarding alleged incompleteness or inaccuracies in the record must be included in an addendum and signed separately. (5) The record must be signed by the person conducting the official proceedings and the persons involved. In the case of official acts involving more than three parties, it is sufficient if the record is signed by the party that filed the application initiating the proceedings and two other parties, or, in the absence of that party, by at least three parties, as well as by any other persons involved. If this is not possible, the reasons for this must be recorded in the record. If the record is created electronically, a procedure for verifying the identity (Section 2, Paragraph 1 of the E-Government Act) of the person in charge of the official act and the authenticity (Section 2, Paragraph 5 of the E-Government Act) of the record may replace the signatures of the person in charge of the official act and the persons involved. (5) The record must be signed by the person in charge of the official act and the persons involved. In official acts involving more than three parties, it is sufficient if the record is signed by the party that filed the initiating application and two other parties, or, in the absence of that party, by at least three parties, as well as by any other persons involved. If this is not possible, the reasons for this must be recorded in the record. If the record is created electronically, a procedure for verifying the identity (Section 2, Paragraph 1, E-Government Act) of the person in charge of the official act and the authenticity (Section 2, Paragraph 5, E-Government Act) of the record may replace the signatures of the person in charge of the official act and the persons involved. (6) A copy of the record must be given or served on the persons involved upon request. (7) The record, or parts thereof, may be recorded using an audio recording device or in shorthand. The information pursuant to paragraph 2, the statement that an audio recording is used for the remaining parts of the record, and the fact that an oral decision was pronounced must be recorded in full text. The recording and the parts of the record taken in shorthand must be transcribed into full text without delay. The persons involved may request service of a copy of the transcript until the conclusion of the official proceedings and may raise objections within two weeks of service due to alleged incompleteness or inaccuracy of the transcript. If such service is requested, the recording may be deleted no earlier than one month after the expiry of the objection period, otherwise no earlier than one month after the transcript has been made. (7) The record or parts thereof may be recorded using an audio recording or in shorthand. The information pursuant to paragraph 2, the statement that an audio recording is used for the remaining parts of the record, and the fact that an oral decision was pronounced must be recorded in full text. The recording and the parts of the record taken in shorthand must be transcribed into full text without delay. The persons involved may request service of a copy of the transcript until the conclusion of the official act and raise objections within two weeks of service regarding alleged incompleteness or inaccuracy of the transcript. If such service is requested, the record may be deleted no earlier than one month after the expiry of the objection period, or otherwise no earlier than one month after the transcript has been made. Section 15 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG): Unless objections have been raised, a record of the course and subject matter of the official act in question, prepared in accordance with Section 14, provides full proof. Rebuttal evidence regarding the inaccuracy of the recorded event remains admissible. 3.2. In substance: According to the jurisprudence of the Administrative Court, the rights regulated in Articles 15 to 22 of the GDPR are dependent on a request from the data subject. These rights therefore exist—unlike the controller's obligation to provide information under Article 14 of the GDPR—not independently of a prior request from the data subject. The general provision of Article 12 of the GDPR also refers to a request from the data subject to exercise their rights with regard to the rights under Articles 15 to 22 of the GDPR (see Administrative Court, 26 March 2024, Ro 2021/04/0030-4 to 0031-5, para. 77 et seq.). Article 12(3) GDPR, Recital 59 GDPR, and Article 16 GDPR also establish that the right to rectification under Article 16 GDPR is a right requiring a request (cf. the use of "request" in Article 12(3) GDPR and "request" in Article 16 GDPR). According to the case law of the Administrative Court, the rights regulated in Articles 15 to 22 GDPR are dependent on a request from the data subject. These rights, therefore, unlike the controller's obligation to provide information under Article 14 GDPR, do not exist independently of a prior request from the data subject. The general provision of Article 12 GDPR also refers to a request from the data subject to exercise their rights with regard to the rights under Articles 15 to 22 GDPR (see Administrative Court decision of March 26, 2024, Ro 2021/04/0030-4 to 0031-5, paragraphs 77 et seq.). Article 12, paragraph 3, GDPR, Recital 59 GDPR and Article 16, GDPR also indicate that the right to rectification under Article 16, GDPR is a right requiring a request (cf. “request” in Article 12, paragraph 3, GDPR and “demand” in Article 16, GDPR). First, it must be stated that the Federal Administrative Court could not rely on Sections 14 and 15 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG) in conjunction with Section 16 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (GBK/GAW Act), as the minutes of the hearing of February 7, 2023, do not meet the requirements stipulated therein and therefore do not provide full proof of the proceedings and subject matter of that hearing. Initially, it must be stated that the Federal Administrative Court could not rely on Sections 14 and 15 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG) in conjunction with Section 16 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (GBK/GAW Act), as the minutes of the hearing of February 7, 2023, do not meet the requirements stipulated therein and therefore do not provide full proof of the proceedings and subject matter of that hearing. A record must (in addition to the requirement that no objections have been raised regarding incompleteness or inaccuracy) be drawn up in accordance with Section 14 of the Austrian General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG). This means that all the requirements stipulated therein must be met in order for it to be considered full evidence (see Hengstschläger/Leeb, AVG § 15 para. 2 [as of January 1, 2014, rdb.at] with reference to VwSlg 8931 A/1975). A record must (in addition to the requirement that no objections have been raised regarding incompleteness or inaccuracy) be drawn up in accordance with Section 14 of the AVG. This means that all the requirements stipulated therein must be met in order for it to be considered full evidence (see Hengstschläger/Leeb, AVG § 15 para. 2 [as of January 1, 2014, rdb.at] with reference to VwSlg 8931 A/1975). According to Section 14 Paragraph 7 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG), the transcript or parts thereof may be recorded using an audio recording device or in shorthand. However, according to the second sentence of this section, the information required under Paragraph 2 of the same section, the statement that an audio recording device is used for the remaining parts of the transcript (...), must in any case be recorded in full script. The full-script portion of the transcript must, in principle, be presented to or read aloud to the persons present, as stipulated in Section 14 Paragraph 3 of the AVG. For the part written in shorthand, reading aloud will regularly be the only option (i.e., unless the persons present are also proficient in shorthand). If an audio recording device was used, its contents may also be reproduced "in another way," i.e., by playing back the recording. This fact, too, must likely be recorded in full script (cf. Haller, ZfV 1980, 221). Consequently, the "record"—which in this context can only refer to the "fully written" part—must be signed by the person conducting the official act and, in principle, also by the persons present (Hengstschläger/Leeb, AVG § 14 para. 8 [as of January 1, 2014, rdb.at]). According to Section 14, paragraph 7, of the AVG (General Administrative Procedure Act), the record or parts thereof may be "recorded" using an audio recording device or in shorthand. However, according to the second sentence of the AVG, the information required under paragraph 2, the statement that an audio recording device is being used for the remaining parts of the record, must in any case be recorded "in full handwriting." The fully written part of the record must, in principle, be presented to or read aloud to the persons present, in accordance with Section 14, paragraph 3, of the AVG. For the part written in shorthand, only reading aloud will regularly be possible (i.e., unless the persons present are also proficient in shorthand). Insofar as an audio recording device was used, its content can also be reproduced "in another way," i.e., by playing back the recording. This fact, too, must be recorded in full (compare Haller, ZfV 1980, 221). Subsequently, the "record"—which in this context can only refer to the "fully written" part—must be signed by the head of the official proceedings and, in principle, also by the persons involved (Hengstschläger/Leeb, AVG Paragraph 14, para. 8 [as of January 1, 2014, rdb.at]). The Equal Treatment Commission informed the Federal Administrative Court that the hearings before Senate III on February 7, 2023, were recorded using audio recording devices. She also stated that there is no summary record with the signatures of those present at the meeting of February 7, 2023, meaning that the minutes were not recorded in accordance with the requirements of Section 14 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG) (in conjunction with Section 16 of the General Administrative Procedure Act/General Administrative Procedure Act). This, in turn, means that these minutes do not provide full proof of the course and subject matter of the official act in question within the meaning of Section 15 of the AVG (in conjunction with Section 16 of the General Administrative Procedure Act/General Administrative Procedure Act). Therefore, the Federal Administrative Court could not rely, or at least not exclusively, on the content recorded in the minutes of the meeting of February 7, 2023. The Equal Treatment Commission informed the Federal Administrative Court that the hearings before Senate Roman III on February 7, 2023, were recorded by audio recording. She also stated that there is no summary record with the signatures of those present at the meeting of February 7, 2023, meaning that the minutes were not recorded in accordance with the requirements of Section 14 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (AVG) in conjunction with Section 16 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (GBK/GAW-Gesetz). This, in turn, means that these minutes do not provide full proof of the course and subject matter of the official act in question within the meaning of Section 15 of the AVG in conjunction with Section 16 of the GBK/GAW-Gesetz. Therefore, the Federal Administrative Court could not rely, or at least not exclusively, on the content recorded in the minutes of the meeting of February 7, 2023. However, in a comprehensive assessment of the individual case, the panel concludes that the appellant did not submit a request for rectification under Article 16 of the GDPR to the other parties involved and therefore cannot have been violated in the right she asserted. In a comprehensive assessment of the individual case, the adjudicating panel concludes that the appellant did not submit a request for rectification under Article 16 GDPR to the other parties involved and therefore cannot have been infringed in the right it asserts. Procedural declarations made by a party must be interpreted solely according to their objective meaning. The decisive factor is how the declaration must be objectively understood, taking into account the specific legal provisions, the purpose of the proceedings, and the case file available to the authority (see, in general, the Austrian Administrative Court decision of September 11, 2020, Ra 2020/11/0122, with further references). It depends on how the declaration must be objectively understood, taking into account the specific legal provision, the purpose of the proceedings, and the file available to the authority (see, in general, the Austrian Administrative Court decision of September 11, 2020, Ra 2020/11/0122, with further references). From an objective standpoint, it was not apparent to the parties involved that the appellant intended to assert its right to rectification within the time limit stipulated in Section 24 Paragraph 4 of the Data Protection Act. The tweet written under a pseudonym cannot be considered a request for rectification, especially since it remains entirely unclear what the appellant specifically intended to achieve with it. In particular, the tweet does not specify which personal data was to be rectified. The participating party 1 was, from an objective standpoint, prevented by this tweet from fulfilling its obligations under the GDPR. The complaining party was also unable to refer to any specific document from which the request could even be inferred. No such request is otherwise apparent from the case file. Furthermore, the complaining party's statements at the meeting of February 7, 2023, should be understood as a request for a system change. A concrete, clear request for the correction of its personal data cannot be derived from its statements. In this regard, it should be noted that it makes little difference to the complaining party whether the participating parties change the salutation only for the complaining party or for all parties. This fact suggests a desired system change and not a change to its personal data. The appellant expressed a desire, as stated in the hearing of February 7, 2023, for a change to the form of address and sought to end the assignment of the incorrect gender. It is important to note that the central issue in the proceedings was that, at that time, no change or correction to a neutral form of address was technically possible. The appellant's statements, considered in conjunction with the subject matter of the proceedings, indicate a desire for a system change in the future. This assessment is also consistent with the statements of the other parties involved, who understood the appellant's statements as a genuine desire for a system change. The panel also concurs with the arguments presented by the other parties during the oral hearing that a clear distinction must be made between a system change and a data change. As a first step, the necessary conditions must be created within the system to allow for an additional gender option; only then can the data changes be implemented as a second step. A system change does not automatically lead to data changes, "because the system does not know [...] which customers' salutations should actually be changed" (see VH transcript, p. 16). The presiding panel also agrees with the arguments presented by the parties involved in the oral proceedings that a clear distinction must be made between a system change and a data change. As a first step, the necessary conditions must be created within the system to allow for an additional gender option; then, as a second step, the data changes can be implemented. A system change does not automatically lead to data changes, "because the system does not know [...] which customers' salutations should actually be changed" (see VH transcript, session 16). As the participating parties correctly state in their statement of October 2, 2024, a data controller must be able to recognize that a data subject wishes to exercise their right under Article 16 of the GDPR. The data subject must therefore contact the data controller by submitting a request. Upon receipt of the request, the data controller is subject to specific deadlines for responding to it. As the participating parties correctly state in their statement of October 2, 2024, a data controller must be able to recognize that a data subject wishes to exercise their right under Article 16 of the GDPR. The data subject must therefore contact the data controller by submitting a request. Upon receipt of the request, the data controller is subject to specific deadlines for responding to it. It is noted that the data stored in the profile was changed, so that – even in the event of a complaint, which is not expected – the complainant's personal data regarding the salutation in the system was altered. Credit notes and invoices were also corrected. Regarding personal salutations and announcements, it should be noted that the GDPR does not apply in either case: With regard to oral salutations, the judgment of the CJEU of March 7, 2024, C-740/22, Endemol Shine Finland Oy, must be considered. In this case, the CJEU ruled that not only written but also oral communications (in the case at hand, this concerned oral information about imposed or already served sentences) fall under the GDPR, provided that this information is stored or intended to be stored in a filing system. Since verbal address by individuals on a train (the form of address chosen by these individuals is not based on information in a filing system, but is generally spontaneous based on outward appearance) is not stored, nor intended to be stored, in a filing system, the material scope of the GDPR under Article 2(1) GDPR is clearly not met. Regarding verbal address, the judgment of the CJEU of 7 March 2024, C-740/22, Endemol Shine Finland Oy, must be considered. In that case, the CJEU ruled that not only written but also oral communication (in the case at hand, this concerned oral information about imposed or already served sentences) falls under the GDPR, provided that this information is stored, or is intended to be stored, in a filing system. Since verbal address by individuals on the train (the form of address chosen by these individuals is not based on information in a file system, but rather spontaneously based on their outward appearance) is not stored in a file system, nor is it intended to be, the material scope of application of the GDPR according to Article 2, paragraph 1, GDPR is clearly not met. With regard to the loudspeaker announcements, no processing of the complainant's personal data took place, which is why the complainant has no right to rectification under Article 16 GDPR. Loudspeaker announcements are addressed to a general audience. The complainant's lawyer made two requests for the examination of witnesses during the appeal hearing. The lawyer initially requested that Ms. XXXX be heard as a witness regarding the issue of whether the complainant had submitted an application pursuant to Article 16 GDPR at the hearing before the Equal Treatment Commission on February 7, 2023. He also requested that XXXX be heard as a witness on the same issue as Ms. XXXX. It should be noted that this is a legal question. It is worth noting that at the beginning of the hearing, the lawyer also requested that XXXX be heard as a witness regarding the question of "whether" an application had been submitted. In this respect, it should be noted that this constitutes inadmissible inquiry (see Austrian Administrative Court [VwGH] August 29, 2024, Ra 2023/21/0022, para. 19 with further references). It is further noted that the request remained general and did not indicate any specific content of a potential application or request. Furthermore, the appellant was questioned extensively, and it is unclear why someone other than the applicant should be able to provide more or more meaningful information regarding any application than the applicant themselves. It is noted that the appellant's request to hear their attorney was granted, and the attorney was summoned as a witness, as requested (see letter dated January 9, 2024). During the oral hearing, the appellant stated that they now wished to be represented by their attorney. With regard to the planned examination of the attorney as a witness, the presiding judge offered to adjourn the hearing so that a substitute could be present and the attorney could be examined. All parties subsequently waived their right to have the attorney examined as a witness (Court Record, p. 3). The appellant's attorney made two motions for witness examination during the appeal hearing. The lawyer initially requested the examination of Ms. Roman 40 on the issue of proof that an application pursuant to Article 16 of the GDPR was submitted by the complainant at the hearing before the Equal Treatment Commission on February 7, 2023. He also requested the examination of Roman 40 as a witness on the same issue as Ms. Roman 40. It should be noted that this is a legal question. It is worth considering that at the beginning of the hearing, the lawyer also requested the examination of Roman 40 on the issue of "whether" an application had been submitted. In this regard, it should be noted that this constitutes inadmissible inquiry (see Austrian Administrative Court [VwGH] August 29, 2024, Ra 2023/21/0022, para. 19 with further references). It is further noted that the request remained general and provides no indication of the possible specific content of any application or request submitted. Furthermore, the appellant was questioned extensively, and it is unclear why someone other than the applicant should be able to provide more or more meaningful information regarding any application than the applicant themselves. It is noted that the appellant's request to hear their attorney was granted, and the attorney was summoned as a witness, as requested (see letter dated January 9, 2024). During the oral hearing, the appellant stated that they now wished to be represented by their attorney. With regard to the planned examination of the attorney as a witness, the presiding judge offered to adjourn the hearing so that a substitute could be present and the attorney could be examined. All parties subsequently waived their right to have the attorney examined as a witness (Proceedings Minutes, Session 3). ``` The presiding judge summoned attorneys Mr. XXXX, Ms. XXXX, and Ms. XXXX as witnesses for the appeal hearing. Regarding the attorney's assertion that only witnesses closely related to a party involved in the proceedings had been questioned in the previous proceedings, it is countered that the attorney's request to be heard as a witness was only waived during the oral hearing, and that a witness from each party involved was summoned to obtain a balanced account of the previous session. Furthermore, the appellant underwent a thorough examination, which formed the basis for the findings. With regard to Ms. XXXX, it should be noted that she was unable to attend the hearing. As previously stated, the appellant underwent a comprehensive examination and was given several opportunities to explain their requests, wishes, and statements, and their testimony formed the basis for the findings. A further hearing was therefore unnecessary, especially since it is not apparent why any further significant statement should have been made that the complainant could not have recounted themselves. Furthermore, no motion for the taking of evidence was made to prove that a specific, relevant statement not previously mentioned by the complainant had been made. The question of whether a request was made pursuant to Article 16 GDPR is—as already stated—a legal question; therefore, the hearing of XXXX was unnecessary. It is noted that the parties involved stated that they would not request any further witnesses and also saw no need for the requested witnesses from the complainant. The presiding judge summoned the attorney, Mr. [Roman numeral 40], Ms. [Roman numeral 40], and Ms. [Roman numeral 40] as witnesses for the appeal hearing. Insofar as the lawyer stated that in the previous proceedings only witnesses with close ties to a party involved in the case were questioned, it is countered that the lawyer's own testimony was only waived during the oral hearing, and that each party involved in the case summoned a witness to obtain a balanced account of the proceedings. Furthermore, the appellant was thoroughly questioned, and this testimony formed the basis for the findings. Regarding Ms. Roman numeral 40, it should be noted that she was unable to attend the hearing. As already stated, the appellant was comprehensively questioned and given several opportunities to explain her requests, wishes, and statements, and her testimony formed the basis for the findings. Therefore, a further examination was unnecessary, especially since it is unclear why any further significant statement should have been made that the appellant could not have provided herself. Furthermore, no request for evidence was made to demonstrate that a specific, relevant statement not previously mentioned by the complainant had been made. The question of whether a request was made under Article 16 of the GDPR is—as already explained—a legal question; therefore, the examination of Roman 40 was unnecessary. It is noted that the parties involved stated that they were not requesting any further witnesses and also saw no need for the requested witnesses from the complainant. Finally, it is noted that the appellant, represented by legal counsel, failed to substantiate the specific rectification requested by the appellant in any written submission or during the oral hearing, despite repeated opportunities. This reinforces the appellant's fundamental aim of seeking systemic changes. For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that even assuming the appellant had submitted a request for rectification pursuant to Article 16 GDPR regarding the form of address to the other parties involved in the hearing on February 7, 2023, the panel would have reached the same conclusion (i.e., dismissal of the appeal), since, in light of the above, the other parties involved have – de facto – complied with the rectification of the personal data (insofar as the GDPR is applicable at all). In this context, reference is made to the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal of 6 March 2024, Ro 2021/04/0027, which establishes that an appeal against an administrative decision must be dismissed by the Federal Administrative Court if the request of the data subject (there concerning the right of access, here: the right to rectification; both a data protection obligation to provide a specific service [see Administrative Court of Appeal, loc. cit., para. 30]) has in the meantime been granted (cf. Administrative Court of Appeal, loc. cit., paras. 13 et seq. and 36, 38 et seq.). It should be noted, merely for the sake of completeness, that even assuming that the appellant had submitted a request for rectification pursuant to Article 16 GDPR concerning the form of address used at the hearing on 7 February 2023 to the other parties involved, the panel would still reach the same conclusion (i.e., dismissal of the appeal), since, in view of the above, As stated above, the parties involved have – de facto – complied with the request for rectification of the personal data (insofar as the GDPR is applicable at all). In this context, reference is made to the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal of March 6, 2024, Ro 2021/04/0027, which establishes that an appeal against an administrative decision must be dismissed by the Federal Administrative Court if the request of the data subject (there concerning the right of access, here: the right to rectification; both a data protection obligation to provide a specific service [see Administrative Court of Appeal, loc. cit., para. 30]) has in the meantime been granted (compare Administrative Court of Appeal, loc. cit., paras. 13 et seq. and 36, 38 et seq.). The assertion that the data rectification regarding the salutation was not carried out cannot be accepted. As established, the data stored in the profile of the appellant party concerning the salutation was changed. The appellant's legal representative merely stated, without providing sufficient evidence, that the data correction had not yet been fully completed at the time of the appeal and had not been fully implemented to this day (court transcript, p. 5). In response to a question from the presiding judge, the appellant explained that the other parties involved had only partially complied with the data correction. Incorrect gender attributions were still being used in personal interactions. The appellant had been addressed as "Ms." once on a train and as "Mr." once. She had received nothing in writing (court transcript, pp. 9-10 and p. 14). No concrete evidence has emerged that the data correction had not been carried out in the interim, especially since the appellant has not received any documents indicating a change to the data in her profile. It is noted that the sleeper car booking was not discussed at the hearing on February 7, 2023, and is therefore irrelevant to the present proceedings. The assertion that the data correction regarding the form of address had not been carried out cannot be accepted. As established, the data stored in the appellant's profile concerning the form of address was changed. The appellant's legal representative merely stated, without substantiation, that the correction had not yet been fully completed at the time of the appeal and had not been fully implemented to this day (Proceedings Minutes, Session 5). In response to a question from the presiding judge, the appellant stated that the other parties involved had only partially complied with the data correction. Incorrect gender attributions were still being used in personal interactions. The appellant had been addressed as "Ms." once on the train and as "Mr." once. She had received nothing in writing (Proceedings Minutes, Sessions 9 and 14). No concrete evidence has emerged that the data correction had not been carried out in the interim, particularly since the appellant received no documents indicating a change to the profile data. It is noted that the sleeper car booking was not addressed in the hearing of February 7, 2023, and is therefore irrelevant to the present proceedings. In light of the submissions made during the oral hearing before the Federal Administrative Court, further review of the case file was necessary, which is why an oral pronouncement was omitted. Regarding B) Inadmissibility of the appeal: Pursuant to Section 25a Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Court Act (VwGG), the Administrative Court must state in the operative part of its judgment or decision whether the appeal is admissible pursuant to Article 133 Paragraph 4 of the Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG). The statement must be briefly reasoned. Pursuant to Section 25a, paragraph 1, of the Administrative Court Act (VwGG), the Administrative Court must state in the operative part of its judgment or decision whether an appeal on points of law is admissible under Article 133, paragraph 4, of the Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG). The statement must be briefly reasoned. The appeal on points of law is inadmissible under Article 133, paragraph 4, of the Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG) because the decision does not depend on the resolution of a legal question of fundamental importance. Furthermore, there are no other indications that the legal question to be resolved is of fundamental importance. Therefore, the decision was rendered accordingly.

## Cited law provisions (6)

### GDPR — gdpr-art-2-par-1-en

This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automated means and to the processing other than by automated means of personal data which form part of a filing system or are intended to form part of a filing system.

### GDPR — gdpr-art-12-par-3-en

The controller shall provide information on action taken on a request under Articles 15 to 22 to the data subject without undue delay and in any event within one month of receipt of the request. That period may be extended by two further months where necessary, taking into account the complexity and number of the requests. The controller shall inform the data subject of any such extension within one month of receipt of the request, together with the reasons for the delay. Where the data subject makes the request by electronic form means, the information shall be provided by electronic means where possible, unless otherwise requested by the data subject.

### GDPR — gdpr-art-2-en

Material scope

### GDPR — gdpr-art-12-en

Transparent information, communication and modalities for the exercise of the rights of the data subject

### GDPR — gdpr-art-14-en

Information to be provided where personal data have not been obtained from the data subject

### GDPR — gdpr-art-16-en

The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller without undue delay the rectification of inaccurate personal data concerning him or her. Taking into account the purposes of the processing, the data subject shall have the right to have incomplete personal data completed, including by means of providing a supplementary statement.

---
Generated by overview.legal · https://overview.legal/posts/49235 · 2026-08-22