Court case 51 O 513/20 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2020)

Court Ruling
DPA LGLandshut6 November 2020Germany
final
Court Ruling

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 case where a property owner claimed damages due to the disclosure of his information related to a legionella outbreak. The court found no GDPR violation in sharing details about affected flats. This case shows that sharing necessary information for public health or property management can be permissible under data protection laws.

What happened

A property owner sued for damages after his information was shared in relation to a legionella outbreak in his residential complex.

Who was affected

The property owner whose flat was affected by the legionella outbreak and whose information was shared with other flat owners.

What the authority found

The court dismissed the case, ruling that sharing the owner's information was permissible under data protection laws and did not entitle him to damages.

Why this matters

This case illustrates that sharing information for health or property management purposes can be allowed under data protection laws. It emphasizes the need for transparency and necessity when handling personal data in such contexts.

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 4(7) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(b) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 82(1) GDPR

National Law Articles

§ 13 WEG
§ 14 WEG
Decision AuthorityLG Landshut
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The plaintiff was the owner of a flat in a residential complex, where the first defendant was the property manager in charge until 31 December 2019. The second defendant was the external DPO appointed by the property manager. There was a legionella infestation in the residential complex, which also affected the plaintiff's flat. In June 2019, all 97 flat owners were invited to an owner's meeting to discuss, amongst other things, the legionella infestation. The invitation included details on which flats were affected by the infestation, with the plaintiff's name and flat. The plaintiff asked the property manager to redact or remove this information. Although this was not done before the meeting, the meeting notes themselves did not mention either. Consequently, the plaintiff sued the defendants and claimed that he had suffered non-material and material damages, like damage to his reputation. In addition, a potential buyer of his flat had cancelled the purchase due to the information about the legionella infestation he had received from the informed owners. The plaintiff further submitted that the second defendant (the DPO) had admitted the infringement in his email and was therefore also liable on the basis of this admission of guilt. The plaintiff also claimed the the parties had violated the GDPR when passing on his e-mail address to their legal representative without his consent. Furthermore, the plaintiff's email address was visible in the transparent field of a letter sent by the defendant's representative to the plaintiff. The first defendant claimed that the listing of the plaintiff's flat and his name as owner was permissible under data protection law. The disclosure of the email address was also permissible under GDPR. The second defendant argued that as a DPO he was not a controller within the meaning of Article 4(7) GDPR. The Regional Court dismissed the action. The Court decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim damages, beacuse there was

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Violations (1)

Misleading Banner Messaging
critical

The cookie banner uses misleading language to trick or pressure users into accepting cookies (dark patterns).

Art. 7 GDPR

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 51 O 513/20 in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

6 November 2020

Authority

DPA LGLandshut

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 51 O 513/20 - Germany (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: