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

Court case 2 Sa 16/21 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2022)

Court Ruling
DPA ArbGStuttgart10 August 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 on a case where a former employee claimed their previous employer did not provide requested personal data properly. The court decided that the employer's data protection officer could provide the information, even if it wasn't from the employer directly. This case clarifies how companies can delegate data requests.

What happened

The court examined whether a former employer violated GDPR by not providing personal data directly to an ex-employee.

Who was affected

A former employee who requested their personal data from their previous employer.

What the authority found

The court held that the information was appropriately provided by the data protection officer, fulfilling the employer's obligations under GDPR.

Why this matters

This ruling clarifies that companies can delegate data requests to designated individuals, like data protection officers. It highlights the importance of transparency and proper communication in data handling.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 15 GDPR
Art. 12(1) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 12(1) GDPR
Art. 15(GDPR)

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

Decision AuthorityLAG Baden-Württemberg (Germany)
Reviewed AuthorityArbG Stuttgart (Germany)

Source checks

Secondary-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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The case concerned the validity of two ordinary notices of termination issued by the former employer of the plaintiff, and the continuation of the plaintiff's employment with the second defendant. Among various claims in the proceedings, the plaintiff argued that their former employer violated their Article 15 GDPR obligations as a data controller. The plaintiff requested information under Article 15 GDPR from its former employer as a data subject. On 25 January 2021, they received an email response from the data protection officer of the data controller's parent company. The email included a reference to an attachment with the requested information. The plaintiff claimed that this constituted a violation of the GDPR, since they did not receive the information from the data controller, but from the data protection officer of the parent company. Furthermore, they claimed that the reference to the attached appendix in the email was not transparent. The plaintiff sought information from the former employer pursuant to Article 15 GDPR, the provision of copies of the personal data processed, and damages for violations of the GDPR. Concerning the "person responsible" for the provision of information The court held that the information was provided by the "person responsible", even though the sender of the information letter was not the controller itself, but the data protection officer of the parent company. According to Article 12 (1) GDPR, a controller must only take "appropriate measures" so that the notification obligation pursuant to Article 15 GDPR is fulfilled. This can be done by a delegated agent, which the data protection officer in the case at hand is. Concerning the form of the provision of information The court held that the information provided by email was sufficient. Pursuant to Article 12 (1) GDPR, the information must be provided in writing or in another form, if necessary also electronically. No formal requirement applies. Almost all correspondence in the employment relationship between the data subject and the data controller was conducted electronically by email. Therefore, the provision of information by email was appropriate.

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 2 Sa 16/21 in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

10 August 2022

Authority

DPA ArbGStuttgart

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 2 Sa 16/21 - Germany (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: