Enforcing jurisdiction
Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation
Privacy topics

Court case 11 ZB 22.895 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2022)

Court Ruling
DPA VGHMnchen22 July 2022Germany
final
Court Ruling

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 car dealership must keep records of test drives to comply with legal obligations. This decision matters because it clarifies that businesses may need to document certain activities even when they involve personal data. Car dealers should understand their responsibilities regarding data retention.

What happened

The court decided that the car dealership must document test drives to meet legal requirements.

Who was affected

The owner of a secondhand car dealership who was asked to keep records of test drives.

What the authority found

The court held that the dealership's obligation to document test drives did not violate GDPR, as it served a legitimate interest.

Why this matters

This ruling indicates that businesses may have to balance legal obligations with data protection, emphasizing the need for clear data handling policies.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 5 GDPR
Art. 6 GDPR
Art. 17 GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 17(GDPR)
Art. 6(GDPR)
Art. 5(GDPR)

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

National Law Articles
AI-identified
Straßenverkehrs-Zulassungs-Ordnung (StVZO)
Decision AuthorityVGH München

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 18 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified.

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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The plaintiff owns a secondhand car dealership. One of the plaintiff's vehicles, driven by an unknown person, exceeded the permitted speed of 50 km/h. The police administration office sent the plaintiff a witness questionnaire and asked for the personal details of the responsible driver. The plaintiff stated that the person in the picture was not recognizable to him. The vehicle in question had been for sale and he had given it to persons unknown to him for test drives. He had always asked for a valid driver's license, which he only took a look at to make sure the person is allowed to drive. For reasons of protection of personal data, he did not store the data. The fine proceedings were then discontinued, but the authorities wanted to impose a requirement to keep a record of people driving cars that are registered in his name on the plaintiff. This can be imposed as an obligation under Article 31a StVZO - Road Traffic Licensing Regulations, if in the past a person who has more cars registered in his name, has failed to identify the driver of one of his cars. In the proceedings that followed, the plaintiff claimed that even if he did store the data for the period of the vehicle being driven by the other person, he would erase it pursuant to Article 17 GDPR after the drive. He argued that if it was not intended to buy the car, there was no actual legal basis under the GDPR to store such data. The Higher Administrative Court of Bavaria (VGH München) held that the plaintiff was required to document test drives and that this obligation was not contrary to Article 6(1) GDPR. Pursuant to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, a controller may use the legal basis of legitimate interest even if those legitimate interests are pursued by a third party. Hence, the applicable legal basis for the plaintiff (the car dealer) was Article 6(1)(f) GDPR as the police, a third party, had a legitimate interest in fulfilling the tasks incumbent upon them in the public interest, which include the pro

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 11 ZB 22.895 in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

22 July 2022

Authority

DPA VGHMnchen

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Automatically normalized and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 11 ZB 22.895 - Germany (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: