Der Hessische Landesbeauftragte für den Datenschutz und die Informationsfreiheit – Court Ruling (Germany, 2022)

The data subject is a lawyer that is employed by the company A. In August 2018, he suffered a severe stroke due to which he has continuously been on sick leave since then. In a labour court case against his employer in 2019, the employer hired a lawyer who disclosed information about the data subject's health during the proceedings. The data subject classified this as a violation of the GDPR because it was a special category of personal data (Article 9(1) GDPR) that should not have been processed. The data subject requested the Hessian data protection authority to intervene against the alleged data protection violations. The data protection authority refused to take action. The Administrative Court of Wiesbaden dismissed the data subject's claim. It held that, in the context of a labour court dispute, both the employer and the lawyer instructed by it are entitled to name and explain any health data of the employee. This applies all the more if the employee is the plaintiff and has brought the relevant circumstances into the proceedings himself. First, it clarified that the lawfulness of the data processing of health data in legal proceedings is assessed according to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR and Article 9 GDPR. Second, lawyers are data controllers within the meaning of Article 4(7) GDPR with regard to their presentation in court proceedings. As independent organs of the administration of justice in their capacity as advisors and representatives, they themselves bear the responsibility for the content of the pleadings in terms of liability and design. Third, according to the court, in their pleadings, attorneys pursue the legitimate interest of fulfilling their contractual obligation with the client (cf. § 3(3) Federal Lawyer's Act [Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung - BRAO]). The activity of a lawyer would be impossible if he were not basically allowed to present what the client informs him of. They would even expose themselves to the risk of attorney liability if, contrary