- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case 3 S 50/21 – 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 tenant's request to access their personal data was denied by their landlord, who claimed they didn't store any data. The court ruled that the landlord did process personal data and must comply with access requests. This case reinforces tenants' rights to access their data.
What happened
The landlord rejected a tenant's request to access their personal data.
Who was affected
The tenant who requested access to their personal data from their landlord.
What the authority found
The court decided that the landlord was processing personal data and violated the tenant's right to access it under GDPR.
Why this matters
This ruling establishes that landlords must comply with data access requests, reinforcing the rights of tenants. It serves as a reminder for all landlords to understand their responsibilities under data protection laws.
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 — 20 March 2026.
Processing notes: 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
Controller is a private landlord, the data subject is their tenant. During an eviction dispute, the data subject filed an access request pursuant to Article 15 GDPR. The controller, however, rejected to comply with the request because it did not store any personal data as a private landlord. Hence, in their opinion, the GDPR did not apply. The data subject was of the opinion that the controller did process data, since their mobile phone number was used for the purpose of communication. Moreover, the controller commissioned an external company to prepare the utility bill. [https://www.lareda.hessenrecht.hessen.de/bshe/document/LARE210000903 The District Court of Wiesbaden acknowledged the data subject’s claim]. It held that the data subject’s personal data was clearly processed, and that none of the exceptions of Article 2(2) GDPR applied. Hence, it concluded the landlord violated Article 15 GDPR. The landlord filed appeal against this decision. The Regional Court of Wiesbaden rejected the appeal. It stated that the controller does process personal data. It noted that the personal data from the rental agreement is processed further by the external company in preparation for the utility bill. According to the Court, at that moment, "computer-aided processing takes place", which results in the company being a processor in accordance with Article 4(8) GDPR and Article 28 GDPR. Moreover, the Court notes that the controller processed data subject's personal data because they communicated via WhatsApp. Lastly, the Court stated that it is obvious that there is no abuse of the right to access, since the data subject's access request, and decided that the controller had to comply with the access request pursuant to Article 15 GDPR.
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 3 S 50/21 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 3 S 50/21 - Germany (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: