Court case 2 ME 426/20 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2020)
General GDPR enforcement action
This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
A German court dismissed a complaint from a university employee who was criticized online for his views on the COVID-19 pandemic. The court found that the criticism did not unlawfully infringe on his rights. This case underscores the balance between freedom of expression and personal rights in public discourse.
What happened
A university employee's complaint about being criticized online for his pandemic views was dismissed by the court.
Who was affected
The university employee who was publicly criticized for his opinions on COVID-19.
What the authority found
The court found that the online criticism did not unlawfully infringe on the employee's rights.
Why this matters
This ruling highlights the importance of balancing freedom of expression with personal rights, especially in public discussions on controversial topics. It suggests that public figures may face scrutiny for their views without it constituting a legal violation.
GDPR Articles Cited
The complainant, as a private individual, took part in a citizens' movement in his city which, among other things, demands an immediate end to all coronavirus-related activities. The complainant was a speaker at the meetings of the citizens' movement. In addition, he made numerous contributions to the citizens' movement's chat group. The chat group itself was critical of the topics of masks, vaccination, 5G radiation, and the detection and threat of the Sars-CoV2 virus. The applicant also took part in a demonstration on 1 August 2020 in Berlin under the slogan 'End of the pandemic - Freedom Day'. In this context, he appeared on the same day as a guest on a talk show broadcast on YouTube, mentioning his employer (the university). As an answer to the above activities of the complainant, the General Students' Committee (AStA) published on its webpage an article criticising the behaivour and opinion of the complainant (an employee of the university) to the coronavirus pandemic. The article points out, among other things, that there is no place at the university for a person who is hostile to science and publicly speaks out against all scientific knowledge about the existing pandemic and denies its threat, and thus, at least indirectly and by association, supports certain nationalistic and rightwing views and political parties, including the denial of the Holocaust. The complainant demanded that the publication of the above statements be removed and not published again. He said he had never claimed to support nationalistic and rightwing views and political parties, including the denial of the Holocaust. The General Students' Committee (AStA) did not act in accordance with the above request, so the applicant filed a complaint with the administrative court. Before considering the complaint, the defendant slightly changed the content of the information provided in the article. The Administrative Court Osnabrück dismissed the complaint and found that there was no unlawful i
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 2 ME 426/20 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 2 ME 426/20 - Germany (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: