Enforcing jurisdiction
Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation
Privacy topics

Court case 11 Sa 808/23 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2024)

Court Ruling
DPA AGDsseldorf7 March 2024Germany
final
Court Ruling

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 job seeker sued a housing company for not responding to his applications and requests for access to his personal data. The court ruled that the company violated GDPR by failing to provide the requested information. This case highlights the importance of companies responding to data access requests promptly.

What happened

The court found that the housing company did not respond to a job seeker's requests for access to his personal data.

Who was affected

The job seeker, who applied for a position at the housing company, was affected by the lack of response regarding his personal data.

What the authority found

The court ruled that the housing company violated GDPR by not providing the requested information about the job seeker's personal data.

Why this matters

This case underscores the obligation of companies to respond to data access requests. Businesses should ensure they have processes in place to handle such requests to avoid legal issues.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 12(3) GDPR
Art. 15(1) GDPR
Art. 15(2) GDPR
Art. 15(3) GDPR
Art. 82(1) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 12(3) GDPR
Art. 15(1) GDPR
Art. 15(2) GDPR
Art. 15(3) GDPR
Art. 82(1) GDPR

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

National Law Articles
AI-identified
§ 287 ZPO
Decision AuthorityLAG Düsseldorf
Reviewed AuthorityAG Düsseldorf (Germany)

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 22 March 2026.

Processing notes: 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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The data subject, a job seeker with over ten years of experience in debt and accounts management, applied twice for a position at a housing company (the controller) on 3 August 2022 and 3 December 2022. The controller did not respond to either application. On 18 May 2023, the data subject requested access to his personal data under Article 15 GDPR. After receiving no response, he sent reminders on 3 June 2023 and 18 June 2023, with deadlines of 17 June 2023 and 28 June 2023. The controller still did not respond. The data subject then filed a lawsuit at the Labour Court Düsseldorf ("Arbeitsgericht Düsseldorf - AG Düsseldorf") seeking a copy of his data, information on all the recipients to whom his personal data was disclosed to, and €5,000 in non-material damages. The first instance court ruled partially in favour of the data subject, granting the access request but denying the claim for non-material damages. The court held that a violation of Article 15(1) GDPR always means a loss of control and cannot be considered as the damage itself. Therefore, the court found that the data subject did not demonstrate any non-material damage entitling him to compensation. The data subject then appealed this decision at the Regional Labour Court Düsseldorf ("Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf - LAG Düsseldorf"), adjusting his claim to €2,500 in non-material damages. First, the court held that the controller violated Article 15 GDPR in conjunction with Article 12(3) GDPR by not providing information on the data subject's personal data, its processing purposes, and the recipients of the personal data to the data subject after repeated requests. Second, the court determined whether the violation under Article 15 GDPR gave rise to a claim for compensation for material and non-material damage under Article 82(1) GDPR. The court held that Article 82(1) GDPR should not be interpreted too narrow. The court took into account that some case law take the view that violations under Artic

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 11 Sa 808/23 in DE

This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Ruling Date

7 March 2024

Authority

DPA AGDsseldorf

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Automatically normalized and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 11 Sa 808/23 - Germany (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: