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

Court case 15 Verg 8/22 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2022)

Court Ruling
DPA VKBaden-Wrttemberg7 September 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 German court ruled on a tender process for digital discharge management software, focusing on GDPR compliance. The court found that the bid from a third party did not violate GDPR, despite concerns about data processing on servers accessible from third countries. This decision clarifies how GDPR compliance is evaluated in public procurement.

What happened

The German court ruled that a third party's bid for software did not violate GDPR despite concerns about data processing locations.

Who was affected

Companies participating in the tender process for digital discharge management software.

What the authority found

The court concluded that a theoretical possibility of access by third countries does not constitute a GDPR violation.

Why this matters

This ruling helps define the standards for GDPR compliance in public procurement, guiding companies on how to structure their bids and contracts.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 5 GDPR
Art. 25 GDPR
Art. 28 GDPR
Art. 32 GDPR
Art. 42 GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 5(GDPR)
Art. 25(GDPR)
Art. 28(GDPR)
Art. 32(GDPR)
Art. 42(GDPR)

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

Decision AuthorityOLG Karlsruhe
Reviewed AuthorityVK Baden-Württemberg (Germany)

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 18 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, authority corrected.

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 respondents issued a Europe-wide invitation to tender for the procurement of a digital discharge management software. One of the exclusion criteria ("A-Criteria") was the software-related compliance with a GDPR draft contract. Additionally, the fact that the data is exclusively processed in an EEA data centre where no subcontractors / group companies are located in third countries, was designed as an evaluation criteria ("B-Criteria"). Both the applicant and the interested third party submitted a bid. The respondents awarded the contract to the third party. The applicant complained that the interested third party should have been excluded from the tender evaluation because, among other things, their bid violated the mandatory legal requirements of the GDPR by processing personal data on servers to which third countries had access. They used A. S.à.r.l. as a subcontractor. The agreement between the third party and A. S.à.r.l. in implementation Article 28 GDPR allowed A. S.à.r.l. to disclose personal data processed on behalf of the customer without or contrary to the customer's instructions and to transfer such data to a third country if this were necessary to comply with laws or binding orders issued by a state authority. Moreover, a supplementary addendum to the agreement stated that A. S.à.r.l. would challenge any unreasonable request by a governmental body. This would already show that A. S.à.r.l. assumed that it would be subject to a request for surrender by the US authorities. The respondent and the interested third party argued to the contrary that the bid did not constitute an infringement against the GDPR since a theoretical possibility of access by the third country did not constitute a transfer of personal data. Moreover, the defendant used standard contractual clauses and implemented the supplementary provisions required by the ECJ under the Schrems II case law through further agreements with A. S.à.r.l.. The procurement chamber agreed with the applic

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 15 Verg 8/22 in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

7 September 2022

Authority

DPA VKBaden-Wrttemberg

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 15 Verg 8/22 - Germany (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: