- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case 10 U 1633/22 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2023)
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 in Germany ruled in favor of a person who challenged an insurance premium increase and sought access to their personal data. The court found that the insurance company must provide the requested information to the individual. This case highlights the importance of individuals' rights to access their personal data.
What happened
A court ruled that an insurance company must provide a person access to their personal data related to a premium increase.
Who was affected
A person who requested access to their personal data from their insurance company.
What the authority found
The court decided that the insurance company could not refuse to provide access to personal data, as it is a right under GDPR.
Why this matters
This ruling emphasizes the importance of individuals' rights to access their personal data. It encourages companies to be transparent and responsive to such requests.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 20 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
The data subject and the controller were bound by an insurance contract. The controller increased the premium and the data subject claimed that such an increase was unlawful. Therefore, the data subject made an access request, to which the controller refused to reply. The data subject challenged the lawfulness of the premium increase in court and contextually asked the judge to order the controller to provide access to the requested information. The court of first instance dismissed the data subject’s access claim, stating that the latter was merely instrumental to prove the unlawfulness of the premium increase, without any autonomous data protection purpose. The data subject appealed the decision. The Higher Regional Court of Koblenz (Oberlandesgericht Koblenz – OLG Koblenz) overturned the first instance judgement. First, the court stressed how information concerning premium increases in an insurance agreement, like in general all contract details related to an individual, are personal data within the meaning of Article 4(1) GDPR. Second, the court referred to the CJEU judgement in case C-487/21 to clarify the scope of the data subject’s right to a copy of their personal data pursuant to Article 15(3) GDPR. The data subject had a right to a faithful and understandable reproduction of all their personal data processed by the controller. The court also pointed out how the right to a copy shall enable the data subject to enforce further data protection rights, such as right to erasure, rectification or objection. Finally, the court stated that the controller could not rely on Article 12(5) GDPR to avoid to reply to the access request. As a matter of fact, that is possible only insofar as a request is manifestly unfounded or excessive. It was uncontested by the controller that personal data were processed, therefore the request was not manifestly unfounded. Regarding the “excessiveness” of the access request, the court of first instance held that it did not dire
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 10 U 1633/22 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Ruling Date
20 July 2023
Authority
DPA OLGKoblenz
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 10 U 1633/22 - Germany (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: