- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case 322 C 3109/23 (2) – 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 German court ruled on a case involving an insurance company that did not delete a record of a vehicle damage claim despite a request. The court decided that the insurer had a valid reason to keep the data. This case shows the balance between privacy rights and legitimate business interests.
What happened
The court ruled that an insurance company could retain data related to a fictitious vehicle damage settlement.
Who was affected
The individual whose vehicle was involved in the claim was affected.
What the authority found
The court held that the insurer had a legitimate interest in reporting the data, which justified not deleting it under GDPR.
Why this matters
This ruling illustrates the complexities of data retention and privacy rights. It highlights the need for businesses to understand when they can retain data and the importance of balancing interests.
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, 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
The plaintiff - the data subject, suffered damage to his vehicle with the vehicle identification number, which is insured with the defendant, on 28.03.2022. The defendant processed and settled this claim as the liable insurer on the basis of a cost estimate submitted by the plaintiff. The calculated repair costs excluding VAT amounted to EUR 3,351.93. The defendant then forwarded the following information to the HIS Information System (HIS - Hinweis- und Informationssystem, a federal directory of the German insurance industry); Date of the fictitious settlement, reporting body, Motor vehicle Reference number of the reporting body, The defendant - the data controller, did not delete or arrange for the deletion of the entry despite a request from the plaintiff or his attorney of record. The data subject claims that the entries in the HIS directory are incorrect, as their vehicle was repaired and therefore there is no fictitious settlement of the damage. Moreover, there was no need for storage due to the repair carried out. In this case, the parties were arguing if the data of the data subject could be deleted upon Article 17 GDPR from the federal Notice and information system, since there was no reason to retain the Data in the system, since the insurance paid for the repair. The court held that, in the case of a fictitious settlement of vehicle damage exceeding EUR 1,500, the comprehensive insurance of the policyholder is authorized to report the occurrence of a fictitious settlement, the amount of the incurred damage, and the vehicle identification number to the HIS Information System. Even in the case of a (flat) claimed repair of the damage with a remaining diminished value, there is still an overriding interest in this reporting, and therefore, no deletion under Article 17 GDPR is required. Even in the event of a proper and expert repair, a balancing of interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR indicates a continued interest of the insurer in reporting the data to
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 322 C 3109/23 (2) in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Ruling Date
26 July 2023
Authority
DPA AGMnchen
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 322 C 3109/23 (2) - Germany (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: