Enforcing jurisdiction
Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation
Privacy topics

Court case 11 K 4526/16 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2019)

Court Ruling
DPA VGPotsdam19 November 2019Germany
final
Court Ruling

Privacy enforcement record

This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

A court in Germany ruled that the GDPR does not apply to handwritten notes from a court president. This matters because it clarifies that not all personal data is covered by the GDPR, especially if it's not processed by computers.

What happened

The court decided that handwritten notes containing personal data are not subject to GDPR rules.

Who was affected

The person whose application was rejected and whose personal data was noted by the court president.

What the authority found

The court held that the GDPR only applies to data processed by automated means, which does not include handwritten notes.

Why this matters

This ruling helps define the limits of GDPR applicability, which is important for businesses handling personal data. Companies should be aware that not all forms of data processing are covered by these regulations.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 2(1) GDPR
Art. 4(1) GDPR
Art. 15(1) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 2(1) GDPR
Art. 4(1) GDPR
Art. 15(1) GDPR

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

Decision AuthorityVG Potsdam

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 20 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified, authority corrected.

Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The plaintiff had applied for a position at the Administrative Court. His application was rejected based on an assessment which included notes of the President of the Court. The plaintiff requested access to his personal file including that assessment, as provided for in Article 15(1) GDPR, which was kept by the Higher Administrative Court. The Court denied the request. Does Article 15 GDPR apply to hand written paper notes? In the judgement, as for the part that is relevant here, the Berlin-Brandenburg Administrative Court ruled that the GDPR does not apply to the notes of the President of the Administrative Court. According to Article 2(1) GDPR, it applies to data processing which is carried out wholly or partly by automated means. This term is not defined under Article 4 GDPR. According to Article 3(2) of the German Federal Data Protection Act (BSDG), the term automated data collection means the collection, processing or use of personal data using data processing equipment. In this case the President’s notes contain personal data of the plaintiff but they are handwritten and not collected or processed using data processing equipment.

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 11 K 4526/16 in DE

This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Ruling Date

19 November 2019

Authority

DPA VGPotsdam

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Automatically normalized and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 11 K 4526/16 - Germany (2019). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: