Court case 2 A 124/22 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2022)
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 judges did not violate a public employee's data protection rights when they shared information from her family law case with her employer. The court found the data sharing was legal under GDPR because it was necessary for her public employment. This decision highlights how data protection rules can differ for public employees.
What happened
Judges shared details from a public employee's family law case with her employer without her consent.
Who was affected
A public employee involved in family law proceedings who had her case details shared with her employer.
What the authority found
The court decided the data sharing was lawful under GDPR as it was necessary for the employee's public role.
Why this matters
This ruling shows that data protection rules can allow for data sharing in public employment contexts, emphasizing the need for public employees to understand how their data might be used.
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
The data subject is a public employee of a state authority and involved in family law proceedings. In the course of the proceedings, she filed a lawsuit to seek a declaration that four judges, which were involved in the proceedings, violated her right to data protection by disclosing data from the family law dispute to her public employer without authorisation and requested that they cease and desist from violating her right to data protection in the future. The defendants pointed out that during her family law proceedings, the data subject developed a history of filing numerous and extremely detailed regular disciplinary complaints against judges responsible for her law suits, succeeding more than 100 complaints a year. Furthermore, the data subject shared many of her correspondence with the court with her employer by placing their email address in the "cc" in an email and it was found that fax submissions by the plaintiff had shown the area code assigned to the data subject's state authority. Due to the excessive amounts of complaints, the judges have been given reasons to believe that she may not be able to properly represent herself in front of the court in her family law disputes or commit to her public employment. To ensure an exhaustive evaluation of the situation, some judges who were ruling in the family disputes got into contact with her employer and disclosed personal data concerning the family law proceedings. The first instance court held that the data processing is legal pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) GDPR and Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. The GDPR does not provide any specific regulation regarding employment data protection law other than Article 88 GDPR, which allows employment data to be regulated by the member states. Due to her employment at a public office, the data processing was lawful upon § 22 Nr. 1 SaarlDSG, which regulates that data processing is allowed when the data processor is a public office and the processing is needed for the beginning or t
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 A 124/22 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 2 A 124/22 - Germany (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: