Court case 3 Sa 33/22 – 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 court ruled that a former employee's image was used without permission in promotional materials, leading to a compensation award. This is important because it shows that companies can be held accountable for misusing personal images. Businesses should be careful about how they use employee images, even after they leave.
What happened
The court found that the company used the former employee's image in promotional materials without consent.
Who was affected
The former employee who had their image used without permission after leaving the company.
What the authority found
The court decided that the company violated the former employee's rights and awarded €10,000 in damages for unauthorized use of their image.
Why this matters
This ruling sets a precedent that companies must respect the privacy rights of former employees. It highlights the need for clear agreements on the use of personal images in promotional content.
GDPR Articles Cited
The data subject was employed as a wrapping technician by the controller, a company in the advertising technology industry. While employed, the data subject agreed to the production of photos and a promotional video which featured him prominently. After leaving the company on 1 May 2019 to work for a competitor, the data subject requested the controller multiple times to cease using and delete the photos and video featuring him, but the controller initially did not comply. On 21 February 2020, the controller finally removed the materials after receiving multiple formal requests from the data subject’s legal representative. The data subject sought non-material damages under Article 82 GDPR due to these violations, including the unauthorized use of their image for commercial purposes. The LAG Baden-Württemberg decided that the delayed response to an access request under Article 15 GDPR does not constitute non-material damage in itself. The court clarified that a mere breach of GDPR provisions is not sufficient to establish a claim for damages under Article 82 GDPR. The rationale is that the law requires concrete evidence of harm beyond the violation of GDPR regulations. First, the court held that the controller’s unconsented use of the data subject's image post-employment violated Article 17 GDPR, justifying a compensation of €10,000 due to the significant damage to their personality rights along with the commercial exploitation without permission. Second, it addressed the data subject's request for detailed information on all personal data processed by the controller under Article 15 GDPR. The court noted this request lacked the specificity required by § 253(2) No. 2 ZPO. Consequently, it ruled that a general request for all personal data does not meet the necessary clarity and precision. Finally, the court rejected the claim for additional damages due to the delayed compliance with the access request, ruling that no non-material damage was proven by the data subj
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 3 Sa 33/22 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 3 Sa 33/22 - Germany (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: