Court case 4 Sa 201 22 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2023)
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 Spanish company was fined for not informing people about video surveillance on its premises. The fine was reduced after the company admitted its mistake and paid voluntarily. This case highlights the importance of transparency in video surveillance.
What happened
The Spanish DPA fined a company for not providing notice about video surveillance on its premises.
Who was affected
People who were recorded by the company's video surveillance without being informed.
What the authority found
The authority found that the company violated GDPR by failing to inform individuals about video surveillance, leading to a fine.
Why this matters
This case emphasizes the need for businesses to clearly inform people about video surveillance to comply with GDPR. Transparency in data collection, especially through cameras, is crucial to avoid penalties.
GDPR Articles Cited
In June 2020, the data subject made an access requesto to the controller, her employer, pursuant to Article 15(1) GDPR. The controller rejected the request and refused to provide information. Shortly afterwards, the employment relationship ended between the parties. In November 2020, the data subject asserted her claim for a copy of her personal data processed by the controller within the meaning of Article 15(3) GDPR. In addition, she judicially demanded compensation for non-material damages of at least €5,000 pursuant to Article 82 GDPR, as the controller had not complied with the obligation to provide the requested data in time. In the first instance, the Bamberg Labour Court awarded the data subject a claim for payment of non-material damages in the amount of €4,000 pursuant to Article 82(1) GDPR in conjunction with Article 15 GDPR. In the opinion of the Labor Court, violations must be effectively sanctioned and the damages must have a deterrent effect in order to help the GDPR achieve its purpose. The judgment was appealed by the controller. During the appeal, the controller argued that the data subject was motivated not by concerns regarding the use and processing of her personal data, but rather by a desire for personal gain. The controller requested that the lower court's judgment to be revised accordingly. The State Labour Court Nürnberg upheld the controller's appeal. On the basis of Article 82(1) GDPR, the data subject was not entitled to compensation for non-material damages from the controller, as the data controller's actions did not meet the legal definition of data processing under Article 4(2) GDPR. As a matter of fact, a violation of Article 15 GDPR regarding the obligation to provide information does not automatically entail the controller's liability in terms of damages. To the contrary, any claim for damages under Article 82(1) GDPR requires an unlawful data processing as defined under Article 4(2) GDPR. Cases of incorrect or delayed inform
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 4 Sa 201 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 4 Sa 201 22 - Germany (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: