Case C-203/22, Dun & Bradstreet Austria: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 February 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien – Austria) – CK v Magistrat der Stadt Wien (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of personal data – Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – Article 15(1)(h) – Automated decision-making, including profiling – Scoring – Assessment of the creditworthiness of a natural person – Access to meaningful information about the logic involved in profiling – Verification of the accuracy of the information provided – Directive (EU) 2016/943 – Point 1 of Article 2 – Trade secret – Personal data of third parties)
Date: 2025-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: confidentiality, data protection, data-processing law, disclosure of information, intellectual property, know-how, personal data, trade information








C_202502041EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2041


14.4.2025






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 February 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien – Austria) – CK v Magistrat der Stadt Wien


(Case C-203/22,
                (1)
Dun & Bradstreet Austria)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Article 15(1)(h) - Automated decision-making, including profiling - Scoring - Assessment of the creditworthiness of a natural person - Access to meaningful information about the logic involved in profiling - Verification of the accuracy of the information provided - Directive (EU) 2016/943 - Point 1 of Article 2 - Trade secret - Personal data of third parties)
(C/2025/2041)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CK

Respondent authority: Magistrat der Stadt Wien

Other party: Dun & Bradstreet Austria GmbH

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 15(1)(h) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation)
must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of automated decision-making, including profiling, within the meaning of Article 22(1) of that regulation, the data subject may require the controller, as ‘meaningful information about the logic involved’, to explain, by means of relevant information and in a concise, transparent, intelligible and easily accessible form, the procedure and principles actually applied in order to use, by automated means, the personal data concerning that person with a view to obtaining a specific result, such as a credit profile.










2.


Article 15(1)(h) of Regulation 2016/679
must be interpreted as meaning that, where the controller takes the view that the information to be provided to the data subject in accordance with that provision contains data of third parties protected by that regulation or trade secrets, within the meaning of point 1 of Article 2 of Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure, that controller is required to provide the allegedly protected information to the competent supervisory authority or court, which must balance the rights and interests at issue with a view to determining the extent of the data subject’s right of access provided for in Article 15 of that regulation.






(1)  
            OJ C 222, 7.6.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2041/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)