Court case 1 A 1343/19 SN – Court Ruling (Germany, 2021)
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 person had the right to access an expert report about a neighboring building, which included their address. The court found that the report contained personal data and the person could request a copy under GDPR rules. This case highlights the importance of understanding what counts as personal data and when individuals can access it.
What happened
The court decided that a person could request a copy of an expert report containing their address as it was considered personal data.
Who was affected
The person who owned the building next to the planned nursing home and was mentioned in the expert report.
What the authority found
The court ruled that the expert report was personal data under GDPR, and the person had the right to access it.
Why this matters
This case emphasizes that even indirect references, like an address in a report, can be considered personal data. Businesses should be aware of what information they hold and individuals' rights to access it under GDPR.
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
The plaintiff planned the construction of a nursing home. For this purpose, he commissioned an expert office to prepare an expert opinion on the structural and functional condition of the neighbouring building with regard to existing damage. This building is owned by the data subject. The data subject requested the plaintiff to provide a copy of the expert report that did not contain the name but the address of the data subject. The plaintiff refused to do so. The data subject then requested the assistance of the competent DPA. The DPA decided that the plaintiff was obliged to provide a copy of the expert report under Article 15(3) GDPR. The present lawsuit is directed against this decision. The court ruled that the data subject had a claim against the plaintiff under Article 15(3) GDPR. = The Administrative Court of Schwerin (VG Schwerin) first finds that the expert opinion is personal data under Article 4(1) GDPR. For this purpose, it distinguishes between factual data and personal data. With reference to ECJ case law, the court explains that the delimitation is to be based on a context-related approach. Accordingly, the personal reference could result from an element of content, purpose or result, a combination of those elements or the realisation of all elements. The content element is realized when direct or indirect information about a person is given. Indirect reference to a person is assumed if statements are made about relationships, such as a statement about the value of a property. The purpose element is given if the information makes it possible to assess, treat or influence a person. This is particularly assumed when various pieces of information are linked, for example, to recognise patterns and to create corresponding analyses based on which the interaction with a person is taking place. The result element is realised if is the possibility that the information can affect the rights and interests of a specific person, for example in the case of info
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 1343/19 SN in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 1 A 1343/19 SN - Germany (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: