- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case 1 S 27/22 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2022)
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 court ruled that a company violated privacy rules by publishing personal data online without consent. The court found that simply losing control over personal data does not automatically mean someone is entitled to compensation. This case raises important questions about how privacy violations are assessed.
What happened
A company published personal data, including names and addresses, on its website without consent.
Who was affected
Individuals whose personal data was published online by the company.
What the authority found
The court ruled that the company violated Article 5(1)(a) of GDPR but stated that not all violations lead to compensation claims under Article 82(1) of GDPR.
Why this matters
This ruling suggests that courts may require a higher threshold for compensation claims related to privacy violations. Companies should be aware of the implications of publishing personal data.
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 — 21 March 2026.
No issues were reported by that automated check.
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
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
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 1 S 27/22 - Germany (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: