Enforcing jurisdiction
Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation

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

Court Ruling
DPA LGLandshut6 November 2020Germany
final
Court Ruling

Privacy enforcement record

This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

A German court dismissed a case from a flat owner who claimed his privacy was violated when his name was linked to a legionella outbreak. The court found that the disclosure was permissible under data protection laws, which is important for understanding how personal information can be shared in community settings.

What happened

The court ruled that a property manager's disclosure of a flat owner's name in relation to a legionella outbreak was lawful.

Who was affected

The flat owner whose name was disclosed during a meeting about a legionella infestation.

What the authority found

The court decided that the disclosure of the flat owner's name was permissible under data protection law, as it was necessary for informing other residents.

Why this matters

This case illustrates that sharing personal information may be allowed in situations where public health is at stake. Property managers and community leaders should be aware of their responsibilities regarding personal data in similar situations.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 4(7) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(b) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 82(1) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 4(7) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(b) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(c) GDPR
Art. 82(1) GDPR

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

National Law Articles
AI-identified
§ 13 WEG
§ 14 WEG
Decision AuthorityLG Landshut

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 19 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified, authority corrected.

Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources

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.

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
Automatically normalized and classified

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

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: