Court case 25 NE 21.2634 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2021)

Court Ruling
DPA VGHMnchen4 November 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 student challenged the requirement to show Covid-19 vaccine and test certificates in Bavarian schools, arguing it revealed her vaccination status without consent. The court decided the rules were justified due to the pandemic's serious health threat. This case highlights the balance between individual privacy and public health safety.

What happened

A student contested the mandatory verification of Covid-19 vaccine and test certificates in schools, claiming it disclosed her vaccination status without consent.

Who was affected

Students in Bavarian schools who were required to show Covid-19 vaccine and test certificates.

What the authority found

The court ruled that the requirement to verify Covid-19 certificates was justified under GDPR due to the pandemic's serious health threat.

Why this matters

This case underscores the legal backing for health data processing during a pandemic, emphasizing that public health can justify certain privacy intrusions. Schools and institutions should consider the balance between privacy rights and public health needs.

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 9(2)(i) GDPR
Decision AuthorityVGH München
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

A student applied to the Higher Administrative Court of Bavaria (Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof - BayVGH) seeking a suspension of the laws mandating verification of the Covid-19 vaccine and testing certificates in schools. The student claimed that she did not consent to the processing of her personal health data, and as only unvaccinated persons are tested, her vaccination status gets known to students as well as teachers. She claimed that considerable social pressure is being put on unvaccinated persons and in such circumstances, voluntary consent as per Article 9(2)(a) and 7 GDPR, does not remain meaningful. On the basis of low incidence and hospitalization risks, the student claimed that there was no cross-border health risk, and Article 9(2)(i) GDPR could not be applied in the present case. Rejecting the application, the Higher Administrative Court of Bavaria held that Art. 9(2)(i) GDPR applies. For the definition of “serious cross border threats” the court referred to Art. 168 TFEU and Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. Art. 3(g) Decision No 1082/2013/EU defines “serious cross-border threat to health” as a life-threatening or otherwise serious hazard to health of biological, chemical, environmental or unknown origin which spreads or entails a significant risk of spreading across the national borders of Member States, and which may necessitate coordination at Union level in order to ensure a high level of human health protection. Due to the latest developments of the pandemic the requirements of this definition are fulfilled. With regard to the argument of social pressure on unvaccinated students the court was of the opinion that the burdens imposed by the processing of personal data are not disproportionate to the benefits accruing to the general public. The risk of stigmatisation may be countered with educational measures.

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 25 NE 21.2634 in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

4 November 2021

Authority

DPA VGHMnchen

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 25 NE 21.2634 - Germany (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: