Court case 1 S 27/22 โ€“ Court Ruling (Germany, 2022)

Court Ruling
DPA LGRavensburg30 June 2022Germany
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 publishing personal information online without consent violated privacy rules. However, the court questioned if losing control of data alone is enough for compensation. This case may influence how courts view privacy damages in the future.

What happened

A local court's judgment and a municipal council agenda were published online, revealing full names and addresses.

Who was affected

Individuals whose names and addresses were published online in a court judgment and council meeting agenda.

What the authority found

The court found that publishing personal data online without consent violated GDPR's transparency rules.

Why this matters

This case raises questions about what constitutes non-material damage under GDPR. It may lead to clearer guidelines on when individuals can claim compensation for privacy violations, impacting future privacy cases.

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 82(1) GDPR
Decision AuthorityLG Ravensburg
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The controller published a judgement produced by a local court which included the full names and addresses of the data subjects. It also published an agenda of a municipal council meeting which contained the names of the data subjects several times. Both documents were made available on the controller's homepage. The Court was of the opinion that the controller violated Article 5(1)(a) GDPR by publishing the personal data online. In considering whether the data subjects should consequently be entitled to compensation under Article 82(1) GDPR, the Court expressed its opinion that the mere loss of control over one's data does not constitute non-material damage. The Court reasoned that the concept of non-material damage should require that a certain threshold of inconvenience is crossed. It therefore deemed that not every unlawful processing of personal data should lead to a claim under Article 82(1) GDPR. The Court stayed the proceedings and requested a preliminary ruling by the CJEU on whether the concept of non-material damage requires that the data subject suffers a noticeable disadvantage and an objectively determinable impairment of their interests or whether a mere short-term loss of control over their data suffices.

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 1 S 27/22 in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

30 June 2022

Authority

DPA LGRavensburg

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 1 S 27/22 - Germany (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: