Home / CMS Lawyers / Johannes Scharf
Portrait of Johannes Scharf

Johannes Scharf

Attorney-at-Law for data protection law

CMS Reich-Rohrwig Hainz
Rechtsanwälte GmbH
Gauermanngasse 2
1010 Vienna
Languages German, English

Field of activity

Johannes Scharf is a lawyer in the Technology, Media & Telecommunications (TMC) Division. At CMS he works in the IP, TMC, Commercial Department and above all in the areas of data protection law and IT law.

Previous professional experience / Education

Johannes Scharf completed his law studies at the University of Vienna in 2009 with a focus on "Computers and Law". In 2015 he received his doctorate from the University of Vienna in the research area "Artificial Intelligence and Law". In addition to his legal training, Johannes Scharf has many years of professional experience as a software architect and project manager in the IT field. He joined CMS in 2015 as a trainee lawyer.

Publications and articles

He presented the results of his research in the field of "Artificial Intelligence and Law" at academic conferences and wrote several relevant publications.

more less


  • Staber/Scharf, Data protection vs. competition law: Round 1, NetV 2020, 56
  • Scharf/Lichtenberger/Rainer, UPDATE: COVID-19 (Coronavirus) and contract fulfilment – What happens if contracts can no longer be properly fulfilled?, CMS (2020)
  • Scharf/Lichtenberger/Rainer, COVID-19 and its contractual impacts under Austrian Law, CMS Law-Now (2020)
  • Scharf/Lichtenberger/Rainer, COVID-19 (Coronavirus) and contract fulfilment – What happens if contracts can no longer be properly fulfilled?, CMS (2020)
  • Scharf/Staber, Data protection vs unfair competition law: Round 1, CMS Law-Now (2020)
  • Scharf/Staber, Warnings for GDPR violations – The calm before the storm?, ecolex 2019, 787
  • Datenschutz und Beweis bei Smartcars, in Schweighofer/Kummer/Hötzendorfer/Sorge (Hrsg), Trends und Communities der Rechtsinformatik – Tagungsband des 20. Internationalen Rechtsinformatik Symposions (Data protection and proof for Smart cars, in Schweighofer/Kummer/Hötzendorfer/Sorge (Hrsg), Trends and Communities for legal informatics – Proceedings of the 20th  international legal informatics symposium, German publication) (2017) 581 Scharf/Preiß
  • Modelling the General Data Protection Regulation, in Schweighofer/Kummer/Hötzendorfer/Sorge (Hrsg), Trends und Communities der Rechtsinformatik – Tagungsband des 20. Internationalen Rechtsinformatik Symposions 2017, 139, Agarwal/Kirrane/Scharf
  • Transatlantische Datentransfers nach dem Fall von Safe Harbour (Transatlantic data transfer after the fall of Safe Harbour, German publication), Die Wirtschaft 5/16, 47
  • Künstliche Intelligenz und Recht – Von der Wissensrepräsentation zur automatisierten Entscheidungsfindung (Artificial intelligence and law – from the representation of knowledge to automatic decision making , German publication), 2015
  • Transfer of Personal Data in the Context of Safe Harbor, Juranek/Scharf, CEE Legal Matters 2.4/2015, 77
  • Scharf/Schweighofer, rOWLer – A Rule Engine for Legal Reasoning with Time and Personal Scope, in Galindo/Schweighofer/Serbena (Hrsg), ICAIL Multilingual Workshop on AI & Law Research 2015, 51
  • Wissensrepräsentation und automatisierte Entscheidungsfindung am Beispiel des Kriegsopferversorgungsgesetzes (The representation of knowledge and automatic decision making using the example of the Act on the Welfare of Victims of War, German publication), Dissertation University of Vienna 2015
  • rOWLer – A Hybrid Rule Engine for Legal Reasoning, in Villata/Peroni/Palmirani (Hrsg), Proceedings of the Semantic Web for the Law and Second Jurix Doctoral Consortium Workshops 2014
  • Die Anforderungen an Sprachen zur Formalisierung von Verwaltungsrecht, in Schweighofer/Kummer/Hötzendorfer (Hrsg), Transparenz – Tagungsband des 17. Internationalen Rechtsinformatik Symposions (Thedemands on languages when formalising administrative law, in Schweighofer/Kummer/Hötzendorfer (Hrsg), Transparency – Proceedings of the 17th  international legal informatics symposium, German publication) 2014, 129
  • Abstraktion als Grundlage der automatisierten Vollziehung, in Schweighofer/Kummer/Hötzendorfer (Hrsg), Abstraktion und Applikation – Tagungsband des 16. Internationalen Rechtsinformatik Symposions (Abstractionas a basis for automated execution, in Schweighofer/Kummer/Hötzendorfer (Hrsg), Abstraction und Application – Proceedings of the 16th  international legal informatics symposium, German publication) 2013, 111
more less


  • 2015 - Dr. iur, University of Vienna
  • 2009 - Mag. iur, University of Vienna
more less


AL­PLA con­tin­ues to ex­pand: CMS ad­vises on ac­quis­i­tion of pack­aging man­u­fac­turer...
The in­ter­na­tion­ally act­ive spe­cial­ist in re­cyc­ling and pack­aging solu­tions AL­PLA is adding to its already broad product port­fo­lio. AL­PLA was ad­vised by CMS again on its re­cent ac­quis­i­tion of Wolf Plastics Group.
Short-time work phase 5: What rules ap­ply to the newly ex­ten­ded Corona...
Corona short-time work is again be­ing ex­ten­ded from 01.07.2021 to 30.06.2022 ("short-time work phase 5"). The new so­cial part­ner agree­ment (here­after "SPA") is now also avail­able. What is new is that – de­pend­ing on how com­pan­ies are af­fected by the Corona pan­dem­ic – a dis­tinc­tion is made between two short-time work mod­els. The most im­port­ant in­form­a­tion can be found here: Mod­el 1: For com­pan­ies that have been es­pe­cially af­fected For com­pan­ies that ex­per­i­ence a de­cline in rev­en­ue of more than 50% com­pared to Q3 2019 or are af­fected by a gov­ern­ment-man­dated ban on cus­tom­er-entry, short-time work phase 5 will con­tin­ue on es­sen­tially the same terms as phase 4: Em­ploy­ers will con­tin­ue to re­ceive the full short-time work al­low­ance. For the time be­ing, how­ever, un­til the ap­plic­a­tion tool in the elec­tron­ic ac­count with the La­bour Mar­ket Ser­vice (eAMS) is ad­ap­ted (which will then en­able cor­res­pond­ing in­form­a­tion from com­pan­ies on the de­cline in rev­en­ue in the La­bour Mar­ket Ser­vice sys­tem), the al­low­ance will be paid out at a 15% re­duc­tion per month  – as in mod­el 2. The out­stand­ing 15% of the al­low­ance must be ap­plied for sep­ar­ately as part of an amend­ment re­quest.Work­ing time can be re­duced to 30-80 % of the pre­vi­ous work­ing time on av­er­age dur­ing the peri­od of short-time work.A fur­ther re­duc­tion of work­ing time for spe­cial eco­nom­ic reas­ons is still pos­sible if ap­proved by the so­cial part­ners (An­nex 2 of the SPA). This short-time work mod­el is val­id un­til the end of Decem­ber 2021. Mod­el 2: For all oth­er com­pan­ies For all oth­er com­pan­ies, a short-time work mod­el with re­duced short-time work al­low­ance and high­er min­im­um work­ing time than be­fore ap­plies: Em­ploy­ers re­ceive a short-time work al­low­ance re­duced by 15% com­pared to short-time work phase 4.Work­ing time can be re­duced to 50%-80% of the pre­vi­ous work­ing time on av­er­age dur­ing the peri­od of short-time work.A fur­ther re­duc­tion of work­ing time for spe­cial eco­nom­ic reas­ons is still pos­sible if ap­proved by the so­cial part­ners (En­clos­ure 2 of the SPA). This short-time work mod­el is val­id un­til the end of June 2022.The fol­low­ing ap­plies to both short-time work mod­els: Dur­a­tion of short-time work A max­im­um of 6 months of short-time work can be ap­plied for. Ap­plic­a­tion and con­sulta­tion It is ex­pec­ted that ap­plic­a­tions for short-time work phase 5 can be sub­mit­ted to the La­bour Mar­ket Ser­vice from 19.07.2021. Short-time work with a start date from 01.07.2021 could then be ap­plied for ret­ro­act­ively un­til 18.08.2021. In all oth­er cases, the ap­plic­a­tion must be sub­mit­ted be­fore the start of the short-time work peri­od. Com­pan­ies newly en­ter­ing short-time work that did not use short-time work between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 must also com­plete a con­sulta­tion pro­ced­ure with the La­bour Mar­ket Ser­vice and the so­cial part­ners, usu­ally last­ing 3 weeks, be­fore sub­mit­ting an ap­plic­a­tion. Net re­place­ment rates re­main the same Re­gard­less of the mod­el of short-time work, em­ploy­ees will con­tin­ue to re­ceive 80-90% of the net pay they re­ceived be­fore short-time work. Com­puls­ory use of va­ca­tion For every 2 months or part there­of of short-time work, em­ploy­ees must now con­sume at least 1 week of va­ca­tion, provided the em­ploy­ee has suf­fi­cient va­ca­tion cred­it. If the em­ploy­ee fails to con­sume va­ca­tion, even though he or she is en­titled to do so, the com­pany may not charge lost work­ing time to this ex­tent for the short-time work al­low­ance. Short-time work and col­lect­ive re­dund­an­cies Em­ploy­ees who are re­gistered for col­lect­ive re­dund­an­cies with the La­bour Mar­ket Ser­vice pur­su­ant to Sec­tion 45a AM­FG can now also be ex­emp­ted from short-time work. This re­quires the so­cial part­ners’ con­sent (An­nex 3 of the SPV). With re­gard to these staff re­duc­tions, there is no ob­lig­a­tion to re­plen­ish the work­force dur­ing short-time work.
COV­ID-19 and la­bour law: com­puls­ory test­ing and vac­cin­a­tion at the work­place
The ques­tion of wheth­er com­pan­ies can ob­lige work­ers to un­der­go COV­ID-19 tests and vac­cin­a­tions, and what the con­sequences and what the con­sequences are un­der em­ploy­ment law in case of re­fus­al leads– un­for­tu­nately – to am­bi­gu­ities in the cur­rent pub­lic de­bate. There is of­ten talk of leg­al grey areas as well as the need for clear­er rules for em­ploy­ers and em­ploy­ees. However, the leg­al situ­ation is by no means as un­clear as it is of­ten made out to be. Of course, due to its com­plex­ity, vari­ous as­pects must be con­sidered when as­sess­ing this ques­tion, but at the same time, clear con­clu­sions can be drawn. We have sum­mar­ised the most im­port­ant of these be­low. It must be em­phas­ised, how­ever, that these de­cisions will al­ways be made on a case-by-case basis and that gen­er­al­isa­tions should be avoided. Em­ploy­ment  law con­sequences in view With this in­form­a­tion, we would like to give you se­cur­ity not only now, but also for the fu­ture.   As the vac­cin­a­tion drive pro­gresses, there will al­ways be un­vac­cin­ated em­ploy­ees along­side vac­cin­ated ones – re­gard­less of wheth­er they do not want to or can­not be vac­cin­ated. Com­pan­ies are fa­cing new em­ploy­ment -law chal­lenges, since com­puls­ory vac­cin­a­tion is not planned to be im­ple­men­ted in this coun­try. The an­swer to the ques­tion about the vac­cin­a­tion status of em­ploy­ees and in the case of a con­scious de­cision against vac­cin­a­tion, in the fi­nal ana­lys­is, after weigh­ing up the in­terests, even dis­missal is pos­sible can be re­spon­ded with yes. In their re­cently pub­lished art­icles, em­ploy­ment law ex­perts Bernhard Hainz and Chris­toph Wolf take a com­pre­hens­ive look at em­ploy­ees’ per­son­al rights and fi­du­ciary du­ties, em­ploy­ers’ du­ties of pro­tec­tion and care as well as data pro­tec­tion con­sid­er­a­tions in or­der to com­ment on the con­sequences un­der la­bour law:  Vac­cin­a­tion status in the em­ploy­ment re­la­tion­ship­Man­dat­ory test­ing and vac­cin­a­tion in the COV­ID-19 pan­dem­ic from an em­ploy­ment law per­spect­ive How com­puls­ory tests and vac­cin­a­tions can be jus­ti­fied: 1. They’re in every­one’s in­terest: a risk-be­ne­fit ana­lys­is will usu­ally show that the be­ne­fits of COV­ID-19 test­ing, and vac­cin­a­tion out­weigh the po­ten­tial risks in terms of pro­tect­ing one­self and oth­ers. 2 Duty of care: com­pan­ies must en­sure the health and safety of all work­ers, which in­cludes tak­ing meas­ures to pre­vent the risk of in­fec­tion. 3. Duty of loy­alty: work­ers must pro­tect the in­terests of the em­ploy­er, but also those of col­leagues and cus­tom­ers, which is why pro­tect­ive meas­ures for every­one’s be­ne­fit, such as test­ing, must be ob­served. 4. Duty of dis­clos­ure: both the ques­tion of prov­ing a neg­at­ive COV­ID-19 test res­ult and prov­ing one’s vac­cin­a­tion status are per­miss­ible and must be answered truth­fully – largely ir­re­spect­ive of the work­er’s sec­tor and field of activ­ity. 5. Ob­lig­a­tion to test: this can be im­ple­men­ted bey­ond the leg­al frame­work ap­ply­ing em­ploy­er in­struc­tions and is jus­ti­fied by the danger of in­fec­tion with the coronavir­us. 6. Com­puls­ory vac­cin­a­tion: even if there is no ac­tu­al ob­lig­a­tion to vac­cin­ate in the em­ploy­ment re­la­tion­ship, the fail­ure to vac­cin­ate or to present proof of vac­cin­a­tion can in cer­tain cases be a fac­tu­al jus­ti­fic­a­tion for dis­missal. 7. Data pro­tec­tion: The pro­cessing of health data by the em­ploy­er can be based on the above-men­tioned duty of care in con­nec­tion with the fight against the pan­dem­ic.   8. No works agree­ment: a vac­cin­a­tion or im­munity status query is to be con­sidered an oc­cu­pa­tion­al re­quire­ment for which neither a works agree­ment nor the con­sent of the works coun­cil is re­quired.If you have  any ques­tions, please do not hes­it­ate to con­tact our em­ploy­ment law ex­perts. 
Data pro­cessing not un­law­ful if the duty to in­form pur­su­ant to Art. 14...
News­Mon­it­or Data Pro­tec­tion - Epis­ode 4
Su­preme Court doubts con­sumer pro­tec­tion as­so­ci­ations’ leg­al stand­ing to...
News­Mon­it­or Data Pro­tec­tion I Epis­ode 3
Vi­enna High­er Re­gion­al Court de­cides on Schrems v. Face­book
News­Mon­it­or Data Pro­tec­tion I Epis­ode 2
Pun­it­ive dam­ages for GDPR in­fringe­ments
News­Mon­it­or Data Pro­tec­tion I Epis­ode 1
Up­date on Trace­ab­il­ity of Data Pro­tec­tion In­fringe­ments Un­der Un­fair Com­pet­i­tion...
Wheth­er en­tre­pren­eurs can le­git­im­ately take ac­tion against com­pet­it­ors for data pro­tec­tion vi­ol­a­tions un­der un­fair com­pet­i­tion law be­cause the GDPR sanc­tion sys­tem is defin­it­ive is a mat­ter of lively...
CMS sup­ports OeNB as it sets course for fu­ture-proof pay­ments in Aus­tria
Over the past one and a half years, to­geth­er with Pay­ment Ser­vices Aus­tria (PSA), the Oes­ter­reichis­che Na­tion­al­bank (OeNB) (the Aus­tri­an Cent­ral Bank) has laid the found­a­tion for mod­ern­ising the pro­cessing...
Over­view of De­cisions Taken Un­der GDPR and Com­pet­i­tion Law
The ques­tion of wheth­er warn­ings can be is­sued and claims suc­cess­fully brought un­der the UWG for data pro­tec­tion in­fringe­ments by com­pet­it­ors was a mat­ter of con­cern in the schol­arly lit­er­at­ure and case...
CMS em­ploy­ment law team pub­lishes a num­ber of new leg­al titles on cur­rent...
From the Corona Hand­book, through a de­tailed ana­lys­is of part-time dis­crim­in­a­tion in col­lect­ive agree­ments, to a prac­tic­al com­ment­ary on the pro­ced­ur­al law of the la­bour and so­cial courts (ASGG): the...
UP­DATE: COV­ID-19 (Coronavir­us) and con­tract per­form­ance - What hap­pens...
We are pleased to be able to provide you with an up­date in this re­gard in view of the great re­sponse to our 23.3.2020 news­let­ter.  The most fre­quently asked ques­tions con­cerned the leg­al op­tions if...