Plaintiffs versus Free State of Saxony – Court Ruling (Germany, 2026)

The plaintiffs challenged a decision approving the amendment plan concerning the southern runway and apron at Leipzig/Halle Airport. During the proceedings, they sought permission for their technical adviser, a permanent resident in the United States, to participate in the oral hearing by video and audio transmission. Among other issues, with the participation via video call, the discussion revolved around the transmission qualifying as a data transfer to United States. The transfer involved data of the plaintiffs, judges as well as spectators. The plaintiffs considered such lawful according to Article 49(1)(e) GDPR. The plaintiffs also submitted that personal attendance of the adviser would involve considerable time and expense and that avoiding a burdensome long-distance journey would support the quality of his participation. They further argued that remote participation would reduce the costs of the environmental proceedings and avoid air travel in furtherance of their noise and climate protection objectives. They suggested scheduling the adviser’s participation on a designated hearing day and at an appropriate time. The oral hearing had been scheduled over three days, with two substitute dates, in proceedings involving extensive subject matter and numerous participants. The court rejected the application. First, it exercised its discretion under § 102a VwGO and considered the case unsuitable for a video hearing because accommodating the six-hour time difference would impede the structured conduct of the complex, multi-day hearing. The adviser’s questioning from the United States would also constitute sovereign judicial activity extending into another state and therefore require US authorization through judicial assistance. Concerning data protection, the court held that Article 6(1)(e) GDPR read with § 102a VwGO did not by itself make the transfer lawful. On the contrary, the Court considered that consent should have been obtained under Article 49(1)(a) GDPR, which was not possible in that case given that it was not possible to know in advance which people would attend the hearing. Article 44 GDPR additionally required compliance with Chapter V. The court found that the Commission’s adequacy decision under Article 45 GDPR applied only to transfers to US organizations listed under the EU-US Data Privacy Framework but did not cover the potential transfers in the present case. The plaintiffs had neither claimed nor established that the transmission would be confined to such organizations, and no appropriate safeguards under Article 46 GDPR had been put in place. The court also held that Article 49(1)(e) GDPR did not apply because the transfer was not necessary for the pursuit of legal claims, as the adviser could attend the hearing in person. Accordingly, the court concluded that the costs, time, and environmental considerations did not outweigh the legal and planning risks.