Inn with Hotel (name not mentioned) V. A public authorty responsible for food quality control (name not mentioned) – 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 ruled that a public authority could share food safety inspection results of an inn with a hotel. The court found that the disclosure was legal under data protection rules because it served public interest. This decision highlights how businesses may have to share certain information if it's in the public's interest.
What happened
A German court allowed a public authority to disclose food safety inspection results of an inn with a hotel.
Who was affected
The inn with a hotel whose food safety inspection results were requested for public disclosure.
What the authority found
The court decided that sharing the inspection results was justified under data protection rules because it served the public interest.
Why this matters
This case shows that businesses may need to disclose certain information if it's deemed important for public interest, even if they prefer to keep it private. It underscores the balance between transparency and privacy in regulatory matters.
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
The applicant runs an inn with a hotel in the urban area of the respondent (a public authority responsible for food quality control). In March 2019, the initiative "TopfSecret" requested via an internet platform ("Frag den Staat") the respondent to disclose information on the last two food regulatory audits of the applicant’s business. After hearing the complainant, the respondent issued a decision, that it would disclose this information within ten days. The applicant filed an action against the decision, requesting i.a. a temporary injunction to prevent the disclosure of the audit results. The Administrative Court Regensburg ordered the temporary injunction of the action. Subsequently the respondent lodged an appeal with the VGH München, requesting to set aside the order of the Administrative Court Regensburg and reject the applicant's request for a temporary injunction. Does the respondent’s decision to grant the initiative "TopfSecret" access to information on the Applicant’s food regulatory audits comply with the German Consumer Information Act (Verbraucherinformationsgesetz - VIG)? Does this decision or the subsequent private use of the information violate the Applicant’s right to data protection under the GDPR and/or other fundamental rights? The VGH München held that as far as the disclosure of information by the respondent constitutes processing of personal data within the meaning of Article 4 (1) and (2) GDPR, this would be justified under Article 6 (1)(c) and (3). The court also found that the VIG complies with Article 86 GDPR: The provisions of this opening clause are taken into account by the Consumer Information Act with its graduated regulatory model which considers mutual interests of both the consumer requesting access and the data subject concerned. Insofar as the complainant fears that the third party or the internet platform will breach data protection laws in the event of subsequent use of the information disclosed, such a breach would no
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Inn with Hotel (name not mentioned) V. A public authorty responsible for food quality control (name not mentioned) in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Inn with Hotel (name not mentioned) V. A public authorty responsible for food quality control (name not mentioned) - Germany (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: