- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case 12 Sa 18/23 – 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 ruled that an employer's use of a private detective to monitor an employee on sick leave was unlawful. The court confirmed that the employer did not have a valid reason for the surveillance and ordered compensation for the employee. This case highlights the importance of respecting privacy rights, even in workplace situations.
What happened
The employer hired a private detective to monitor an employee during sick leave without a valid reason.
Who was affected
The employee who was monitored and subsequently fired based on the collected information.
What the authority found
The court decided that the employer's surveillance was unlawful and violated the principle of data minimization.
Why this matters
This ruling emphasizes that employers must respect employees' privacy rights and use less intrusive measures when necessary. It sets a precedent for how surveillance in the workplace should be approached.
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 — 18 March 2026.
Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified.
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 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
Ruling Date
26 April 2023
Authority
DPA LAGDsseldorf
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 12 Sa 18/23 - Germany (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: