Court case 31 O 714/21 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2022)
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 decided that a shareholder of two companies did not have an urgent right to access business records under Article 15 GDPR. The court found no immediate need for an interim injunction to provide full access to these records. This case highlights that not all requests for data access are considered urgent under GDPR.
What happened
A shareholder requested full access to business records, claiming urgency under Article 15 GDPR, but the court found no urgent need.
Who was affected
The shareholder of two companies involved in a German airline, seeking access to business records.
What the authority found
The court ruled that the shareholder likely did not have a right to urgent access under Article 15 GDPR, as there was no immediate need for an injunction.
Why this matters
This ruling shows that courts may not always find data access requests urgent under GDPR, especially when the data's personal nature is disputed. Businesses should understand that urgency in data access claims must be clearly justified.
GDPR Articles Cited
The data subject is the shareholder of two companies that were part of a German airline (hereinafter “companies”). The controller is the insolvency administrator of these companies. The accounting of the companies was done by an accounting department, respectively by an external service provider. A German Local Court ordered the seizure of the business records, in particular the accounting records. Afterwards, the controller continued to provide the data subject with access to the accounting systems. The parties dispute whether full access was granted in the process. The data subject requests that the controller shall be obliged to set up full data access by means of an interim injunction. The data subject bases the claim, inter alia, on Article 15 GDPR. The controller requests that the application for an interim injunction shall be dismissed. The court ruled that a right to access pursuant to Article 15 GDPR likely did not exist in this case. Subsequently, it did not find the urgency necessary for an interim injunction. The court did not share the data subject's view that data created or received under their management would in any case be personal data concerning them, irrespective of the detailed content. In any case, however, this did not result in any particular urgency in the sense of a ground for injunction. According to the court, there is no legal principle that the assertion of the right to information under data protection law would always be urgent or that the claimant should not be referred to assertion in the main proceedings.
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 31 O 714/21 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 31 O 714/21 - Germany (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: