Court case 16 K 16155/21 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2021)

Court Ruling
DPA BFH27 October 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 ruled that a claim for damages under GDPR against a tax office must be filed in ordinary courts, not financial courts. The court clarified that GDPR doesn't override national rules on where such claims should be filed. This decision is important for understanding where to bring GDPR-related claims.

What happened

The court ruled that GDPR claims against state authorities must be filed in ordinary courts, not financial courts.

Who was affected

An individual whose personal data was allegedly mishandled by a tax office.

What the authority found

The court held that GDPR claims against state authorities must follow national rules for filing claims, meaning they should go to ordinary courts.

Why this matters

This ruling clarifies the procedural steps for filing GDPR claims against state authorities in Germany, emphasizing the need to follow national court procedures. It helps individuals understand where to take their claims for data mishandling.

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 82 GDPR
Art. 79(2) GDPR
Art. 82(6) GDPR

National Law Articles

Article 34 GG
Article 40(2) VwGO
Decision AuthorityFG Berlin-Brandenburg
Reviewed AuthorityBFH (Germany)
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

Controller is a tax office. Data subject is an individual whose income from self-employment was audited. Data subject found that their personal data was processed unlawfully, and requested the Financial Court Berlin-Brandenburg to order the controller to pay (effective punitive) damages pursuant to Article 82 GDPR. The chairman on the Court informed the parties on 21.04.2021 that the claim for damages possibly needed to be brought before the ordinary courts, rather than the financial courts, since this could be regarded a claim for official liability (Article 34 GG and Article 40(2) VwGO). Data subject found that Article 82 GDPR constitutes a separate basis for a claim, and found that the financial court was compatible to rule. The Court held the claim is inadmissible. The Court stated that a claim, pursuant to Article 82 GDPR, directed at state authorities, must be asserted in accordance with the procedural rules of the respective Member State for the enforcement of claims in the event of breaches of official duties, in Germany therefore before the ordinary courts (Article 34 GG, Article 40(2) VwGO). Moreover, the Court considered the reference to Article 79(2) GDPR from Article 82(6) GDPR, and the fact that one could argue that Article 82(6) GDPR overrides Member State procedural law. The Court, however, noted that Article 79(2) GDPR only regulates international jurisdiction. This means that this provision only regulates which courts of which state have jurisdiction in a claim for damages, and does not regulate which court within a Member State is compatible to handle such a claim. The Court claimed that this interpretation is supported by recital 145 because this recital only addresses cross-border situations, and the fact that the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union already have no regulatory competence for the procedural enforcement of claims within the Member States.

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 16 K 16155/21 in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

27 October 2021

Authority

DPA BFH

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 16 K 16155/21 - Germany (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: