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

Court case 11 U 88/22 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2023)

Court Ruling
DPA OLGHamm20 January 2023Germany
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 vaccination hub unlawfully processed personal data when it accidentally disclosed sensitive information via email. The court found that the breach posed risks to individuals' fundamental rights. This case highlights the importance of safeguarding personal data, especially in sensitive contexts like health.

What happened

A vaccination hub accidentally disclosed personal data of several hundred individuals through an email.

Who was affected

Individuals whose personal data was disclosed by the vaccination hub's email.

What the authority found

The court found that the vaccination hub violated multiple GDPR articles by unlawfully processing personal data.

Why this matters

This ruling underscores the need for organizations to implement robust data protection measures, particularly when handling sensitive health information. It serves as a warning that breaches can have serious implications for individuals' rights.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 82 GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 82(GDPR)

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

Decision AuthorityOLG Hamm

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 19 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified, 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

During the Covid-19 pandemic, a vaccination hub accidentally disclosed by email personal data of several hundred people, including their choice to adhere to the mass vaccination. One of the data subjects involved in this data breach asked the controller for non-material damages. They claimed that the violation posed significant risks to their fundamental rights. In particular, they stated to have received a phishing email from an alleged "European Consumer Protection Agency" aiming to steal their and other data subjects’ data from the vaccination hub’s previous email. The data subject also claimed that data could end up in the hands of violent anti-vaccination militants. Therefore, the data subject held to be entitled to non-material damages for an amount of €10,000 pursuant to Article 82 GDPR. In the first instance judgement, the controller stressed that the data subject made their own vaccination data publicly available on Facebook. Thus, no violation occurred with regards to their health data. Moreover, the controller claimed that Article 82 GDPR requires fault, whereas in the present case there was only slight negligence by an employee of the controller. In addition, the controller denied that the data subject suffered any negative consequence: the fundamental rights violations lamented were in fact just abstract and unlikely to happen. In any case, no causal link between such negative consequences and the controller’s conduct could be found. The controller also stressed that the definition of non-material damages under GDPR was unclear and several questions concerning the interpretation of Article 82 GDPR were currently pending before the CJEU. The Court of first instance found that Article 82 GDPR applied in the case at issue. The controller unlawfully processed personal data, including health data, and violated Articles 5(1)(f), 9 and 32 GDPR. A “loss of control” over personal data is sufficient to substantiate non-material damages in accordance with Articl

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 U 88/22 in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

20 January 2023

Authority

DPA OLGHamm

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 U 88/22 - Germany (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: