Applies toEUDEAT

Storage Limitation

Art. 5(1)(e) GDPR — erasing data once the purpose has been achieved

TL;DR

Personal data may not be stored for longer than is necessary for the processing purpose. Once the purpose has been achieved: erasure or anonymisation — unless statutory retention obligations apply (e.g. § 257 HGB, § 147 AO).

What is storage limitation?

The storage limitation principle (Art. 5(1)(e) GDPR) applies uniformly across the EU. The specific retention periods, however, follow from national tax and commercial law and differ between Germany and Austria.

Germany

  • Tax and commercial records: 10 years (§ 147 AO, § 257 HGB)
  • Payroll accounts: 6 years (§ 41 EStG)
  • Applicant data where no employment follows: 6 months after rejection (practical value, not a statutory period; covers the two-month period under § 15(4) AGG)
  • Marketing consents: for as long as the consent applies, then 3 years for evidence purposes (practical value, not a statutory period)
  • Cookie data: max. 12 months (practical value, not a statutory period; consent under § 25(1) TDDDG)

Austria

  • Accounting and business records: 7 years (BAO § 132(1), UGB § 212(1)) — not 10 years as in Germany
  • Cookie data: active, informed consent (§ 165(3) TKG 2021); the competent supervisory authority is the Austrian Data Protection Authority (Datenschutzbehörde, DSB), not the German Data Protection Conference (DSK)

Practical example

HR software stores applications. After a rejection, the data are erased after 6 months (practical value, not a statutory period; by then the two-month period under § 15(4) of the German General Equal Treatment Act (AGG), running from receipt of the rejection, has expired). Exception: the applicant consents to a talent pool — longer storage is then possible.

Frequently asked questions

Who decides the retention period?
The controller, documented in the record of processing activities, based on the purpose and the law.
What if a retention obligation and data minimisation conflict?
The retention obligation takes precedence. BUT: restrict access (tax adviser only).
Is anonymisation sufficient?
Yes, where it is genuine anonymisation (not pseudonymisation). The data are then no longer personal data.

See also

Practitioner note: This article is practice-oriented compliance documentation, not legal advice. We are compliance specialists, not a law firm. For legally binding advice, consult a qualified lawyer.