Court case 1 K 90.19 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2020)

The plaintiff requested written information about the personal data stored by the Local Court of Tiergarten (“Amtsgericht Tiergarten”) concerning his person (including information about the origin and recipients of this data). The Court then dismissed the application on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to prove his identity in the required form and further demanded the submission of a copy of the plaintiff's identity card. In the subsequent action the plaintiff essentially argued that he was sufficiently identified on the basis of the available postal correspondence with the President of the Amtsgericht Tiergarten. Was there any "reasonable doubt" as to the applicant’s identity? And was it therefore necessary, to request additional information to confirm his identity as laid down in § 59 (4) BDSG? The right to information constitutes an unconditional right. The legal basis for the procedure of the provision of information is § 59 BDSG. According to this, the authority obliged to provide information may only request additional information to confirm the identity of an applicant if there is "reasonable doubt" as to his or her identity. Without any particular reason, the authority obliged to provide information may thus not demand proof of identity from an applicant. Particular reasons or special circumstances are neither presented here nor otherwise apparent. The address of the plaintiff has been known to the defendant for some time. The Amtsgericht Tiergarten has already sent various decisions to the plaintiff at his present address in the past. Furthermore, there is no indication that a third party might have an interest in the requested information and could therefore use a false identity to obtain the information by fraud. Finally, the defendant can prevent the misdirection of the information by formally serving the letter of information.