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

Court case VI ZR 576/19 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2021)

Court Ruling
DPA LGKln15 June 2021Germany
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 ruled that a life insurance company did not fully meet a person's request for information about their personal data. The court decided that the company had already provided enough information, but the person claimed it was incomplete. This case shows how important it is for companies to clearly communicate what personal data they hold and ensure requests are properly addressed.

What happened

The court upheld a decision that a life insurance company had sufficiently responded to a person's request for information about their personal data.

Who was affected

A person insured with the life insurance company who requested information about their personal data.

What the authority found

The court found that the company had fulfilled its obligation to provide information, as the person did not prove that the information was incomplete.

Why this matters

This case highlights the need for clear communication between companies and individuals regarding personal data. Companies should ensure they provide complete information to avoid disputes.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 4(1) GDPR
Art. 15(1) GDPR
Art. 15(3) GDPR
Art. 99(2) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 15(1) GDPR
Art. 15(3) GDPR
Art. 4(1) GDPR
Art. 99(2) GDPR

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

National Law Articles
AI-identified
§ 362(1) BGB
§ 260 BGB
§ 253(2)(2) ZPO
§ 256(2) ZPO
§ 543(1)(1) ZPO
Decision AuthorityBGH
Reviewed AuthorityLG Köln (Germany)

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 20 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 controller is a life insurance company with which the data subject is insured. Even before the introduction of the GDPR, the data subject asserted a claim for information pursuant to § 34 of the old version of the German Data Protection Act (BDSG). The controller provided some information. However, the data subject was of the opinion that the information provided was incomplete. The claim subsequently asserted in court was dismissed at first instance. In the second instance, the data subject based his request for information on Article 15 GDPR, which has since entered into force. The data subject requested information on all personal data actually held by the defendant, which were subsequently specified in more detail. The court of second instance rejected the right to information, arguing that the claim had already been fully satisfied. The data subject had not specifically shown that the information already provided by the controller was incomplete and what further information he was demanding. Furthermore, the requested items were not subject to the right of access. The data subject appealed this decision to the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof - BGH). The appeal against the denied right of access was successful. The data subject was entitled to information to the extent claimed. The claim was not fulfilled by the controller and insofar still existed to the extent asserted. The BGH refrained from a preliminary ruling since the interpretation of the law is clearly defined by the CJEU ("acte clair"). = The court first explains under which conditions a right of access is fulfilled. This is the case if, according to the controller's declared intention, the information constitutes the information owed in its entirety. If the information is provided in this form, any inaccuracy in its content does not prevent performance. The suspicion that the information provided was incomplete or incorrect could not justify a claim to information to a greater exte

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case VI ZR 576/19 in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

15 June 2021

Authority

DPA LGKln

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 VI ZR 576/19 - Germany (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: