Court case 2 K 182.19 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2020)

Ιn the course of disciplinary proceedings, it had become known that information about the applicant, had been queried in the database. Among other things, the police officer had requested information about which data had been queried by which police officer and for what reason within the last two years. This request was last rejected on 15.03.2019 on the grounds of the protection of personal data and the alleged pursuit of private interests. Thereupon, the police officer filed a complaint with the Administrative Court of Berlin. The Court considered the action to be admissible and well founded: The defendant's contested decision was unlawful and infringed the applicant's information rights. The legal basis for this is § 3 paragraph 1 of the Gesetz zur Förderung der Informationsfreiheit im Land Berlin (Freedom of Information Act for the State of Berlin - IFG Berlin). According to this law, every person has the right to inspect the content of the files kept by a public body mentioned in § 2 IFG Berlin or to obtain information about their content. The Court ruled that the policemen, as a natural person, belongs to the group of entitled persons and that the police commissioner, as an authority of the Land of Berlin, is to be regarded as a public body obliged to provide information under § 2 IFG Berlin. In addition, the evaluation of the data protocol “in written or electronically recorded records” constitutes a file within the meaning of §3 paragraph IFG Berlin. The Court also did not see the reason for exclusion under §6 IFG Berlin, according to which there is no right to inspect or obtain information about files if personal data are published and there are factual indications that the inspection or obtainment of information predominantly pursues private interests. Although § 6 of the IFG Berlin gives priority to the protection of personal data over the interest in information, the Court considers that, in view of the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the applicant, which involve the requested database searches, the question of legal review of State measures also arises here. In addition, the Court found that there were also no factual indications that the interests of the persons concerned were contrary to those worthy of protection. In particular with regard to § 6 paragraph 2 No. 2 IFG Berlin, this can generally be ruled out if the file shows the involvement of a particular official in administrative proceedings by publishing his or her name, title, academic degree, profession, internal job title, business address and telephone number. Since this was the case in the present ruling, the Court agreed with the applicant and gave him the right to obtain information on the search for data relating to his person.