Court case 1 A 1254/20 SN – Court Ruling (Germany, 2021)

Court Ruling
DPA VGSchwerin16 March 2021Germany
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 dealt with a case where a person requested data access from a legal representative but received the information late. The individual complained to the data protection authority, which found no violation since the data was eventually provided. The court supported the authority's decision, emphasizing procedural compliance.

What happened

A person requested personal data from a legal representative and received it two weeks late.

Who was affected

The individual who requested access to their personal data from the participant's legal representative.

What the authority found

The court agreed with the data protection authority that there was no violation, as the data was provided, albeit late.

Why this matters

This ruling underscores the importance of timely responses to data access requests but also shows that minor delays may not always constitute a legal breach. Businesses should strive for prompt compliance to avoid disputes.

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 15 GDPR
Art. 4(7) GDPR
Art. 4(8) GDPR
Art. 57(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 57(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 78(1) GDPR
Art. 78(2) GDPR

National Law Articles

§ 166 BGB
Decision AuthorityVG Schwerin
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The plaintiff and the participant in this case had previously been involved in another proceeding in which the applicant challenged a building permit issued to the participant. In this case the participant's representative introduced documents into the proceedings - a notarial contract with City A, to which the applicant, among others, was a party. Immediately following the conclusion of the above case, the complainant requested information from the participant on what personal data he was processing about the applicant. He set a deadline within which he expected a reply (less than one month). He did not receive an answer within the specified time limit and therefore asked the defendant (the supervisory authority) to intervene. The authority indicated that it could only take action one month after the request was made to the participant. The authority asked to be informed if the request was not complied with within one month. The applicant received the information about processing his data by the participant two weeks late. The complainant turned to the supervisory authority again, claiming that the information was incomplete. By letter of 6 January 2020, the participant's representative informed that full information had been provided to the plaintiff. Besides, only the participant's representative had access to the documents containing applicant's personal data. It had not been revealed to the participant. In June 2020, the DPA informed the claimant of its final decision. In the DPA's view, there was no infringement and therefore no further action was needed. The supervisory authority stated that the notarial contracts, to which the plaintiff was a party, had not been available to the participant at any time. They had been made available by the city of A-City exclusively to the law firm of the participant's legal representative. The plaintiff claimed that the above mentioned contracts were made available to the participant's legal representative by A-City viola

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 1 A 1254/20 SN in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

16 March 2021

Authority

DPA VGSchwerin

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 1 A 1254/20 SN - Germany (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: