- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case 1 A 1343/19 SN – Court Ruling (Germany, 2021)
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 court ruled that a person must provide a copy of an expert report that contains personal data, even if the name is not included. This matters because it clarifies that individuals have rights to access their personal information.
What happened
The court ruled that the plaintiff must provide the expert report to the data subject.
Who was affected
The individual who requested access to the expert report.
What the authority found
The court found that the expert report contained personal data and the individual had a right to access it under GDPR.
Why this matters
This ruling reinforces the right of individuals to access their personal data. Businesses should be aware of these rights and ensure they comply with access requests.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 17 March 2026.
No issues were reported by that automated check.
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
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
Ruling Date
29 April 2021
Authority
DPA VGSchwerin
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 1 A 1343/19 SN - Germany (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: