Court case 12 Sa 18/23 – 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 German court upheld a decision that an employer unlawfully surveilled an employee on sick leave using a private detective. The court confirmed the employee should receive compensation for the privacy violation. This case highlights the importance of respecting employee privacy and choosing less intrusive monitoring methods.
What happened
An employer unlawfully surveilled an employee on sick leave using a private detective.
Who was affected
An employee who was monitored by their employer while on sick leave.
What the authority found
The court confirmed the surveillance was unlawful and the employee should be compensated for the privacy violation.
Why this matters
This decision emphasizes the need for employers to respect employee privacy and consider less intrusive methods when monitoring is necessary. It also highlights the potential for compensation when privacy rights are violated under GDPR.
GDPR Articles Cited
The controller, an employer, hired a private detective to monitor the data subject, an employee, during a sick leave. Surveillance measures were due to the fact the controller had reasons to doubt that the data subject was actually sick. As a matter of fact, eventually the controller used the information collected in this way to fire the data subject. The latter appealed the decision before a labour court, claiming that the decision was unlawful. They also claimed non-material damages in violation of their personality right due to the surveillance. The court of first instance upheld the data subject’s claims and considered that damages had to be compensated pursuant to Article 82 GDPR. The controller appealed the first instance decision. The court rejected the controller’s appeal and confirmed that the data subject should be compensated for the damage suffered. At the outset, the court confirmed the unlawfulness of the surveillance measure. According to the court, regardless of whether the controlled tried to base the processing on contract (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR) or legitimate interest (Article 6(1)(f) GDPR), the requirement of necessity was not met in the present case. By choosing to monitor the data subject by means of a private detective, the controller did not adopt the less intrusive measure and also violated the principle of data minimisation. Concerning Article 82 GDPR, the court referred to the CJEU judgement in case [https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=CJEU_-_C-300/21_-_%C3%96sterreichische_Post_AG C-300/21], where the latter clarified that non-material damages under the GDPR cannot be granted in case of a mere violation of the Regulation. As a matter of fact, a negative consequence stemming from the violation must be proved. At the same time, it is not necessary that such a consequence reaches a certain threshold of seriousness to be compensated. The court found that the surveillance of the data subject by means of a private detective necessarily entaile
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 12 Sa 18/23 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 12 Sa 18/23 - Germany (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: