Court case 2 AZR 225/20 – 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 a company could not fire its data protection officer (DPO) without a valid reason unrelated to their job performance. This decision protects DPOs from being dismissed unfairly, ensuring they can perform their duties without fear of losing their jobs.
What happened
The court ruled that a company could not dismiss its data protection officer without a valid reason unrelated to their job performance.
Who was affected
The data protection officer employed by the company who was facing dismissal.
What the authority found
The court decided that the company could not terminate the DPO's employment without a valid reason, even if it was unrelated to their job duties, aligning with GDPR's protection for DPOs.
Why this matters
This case highlights the strong job protection for data protection officers under GDPR, ensuring they can work independently. Companies should be cautious when considering dismissals of DPOs, as they need valid reasons that comply with both national and European rules.
GDPR Articles Cited
The case concerns a dispute regarding the validity of an ordinary termination of a data protection officer's (DPO) employment relationship. The plaintiff had been working for the defendant as the company DPO starting on 1 February 2018. In a letter dated 13 July 2018, the defendant, the plaintiff's employer, terminated the employment relationship with effect from 15 August 2018. In order to make the termination effective, the defendant invoked a restructuring measure which had led to the discontinuation of the plaintiff's need for employment. The plaintiff applied for a declaration to declare that the employment relationship between her and the defendant was not terminated by the defendant's notice of termination. The plaintiff invoked a special protection against the dismissal of DPOs pursuant to section 38(2) in conjunction with section 6(4) sentence 2 of the German Federal Data Protection, according to which DPOs may not be dismissed without observing a notice period unless facts exist which entitle the employer to terminate the employment relationship for "good cause". The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action, arguing that the plaintiff could not invoke the special protection as the law would violated Article 38(3) GDPR which mandates that DPOs shall only be protected from dismissals which relate to the performance of their tasks. Consequently, the court asked the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on whether, as argued by the defendant, the national and European norms are in conflict. The CJEU answered that the norms are not in conflict. Therefore, the German Federal Labour Court decided to agree with the plaintiff. According to the CJEU (see C-534/20), Article 38(3) second sentence GDPR is to be interpreted as not precluding a national rule, under which a data protection officer employed by a controller or processor may be dismissed only for good cause, even if the dismissal is not related to the performance of his or her duties, provided that that ru
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 AZR 225/20 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 AZR 225/20 - Germany (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: