Court case 5 Ca 663/24 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2024)

Court Ruling
DPA ArbGBonn20 November 2024Germany
final
Court Ruling

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.

The data subject maintained an "on/off relationship" with a subordinate. After disputes arose, this subordinate sent excerpts of the WhatsApp-Chat traffic with the data subject to the works council chairman of the company they worked for. The chairman than forwarded this chat history containing highly intimate data to the human resources department (HR) which ultimately led to the termination of the data subject's employment. The data subject argued, among other things, that there was no legal basis under Article 6 GDPR for this disclosure and that the forwarding was both a violation of data protection law and of his general personal rights therefore entitling him to €5,000 plus interest in non-material damages from the works council's chairman pursuant to Article 82(1) GDPR. # The labor court dismissed the data subject's claim, holding that the data transfer was lawful under Article 6(1)(b) and (f) GDPR and [https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bdsg_2018/__26.html § 26(1) BDSG] (Federal Data Protection Act) in order to provide the employer with the most meaningful basis for examining the complaint of the data subject's subordinate. The court argued, that the scope of Article 6(b) GDPR also includes the transfer of data for the execution and termination of the employment contract of the data subject and his subordinate for the examination of possible measures by the employer. The data subject had not provided evidence the transferred personal data was irrelevant for the examination of the subordinate's complaint. # Furthermore the court argued, that the data subject has not provided evidence that the works council chairman did not act in his capacity as a works council member when forwarding the data to the human resources department, meaning that he would not have been personally liable to the plaintiff for compliance with data protection law in any case. According to [https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/betrvg/__79.html § 79a BetrVG] (Works Constitution Act), the

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 6(1)(b) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 82 GDPR

National Law Articles

§ 26 Abs. 1 BDSG
§ 79a BetrVG
Decision AuthorityArbG Bonn
Full Legal Summary

The data subject maintained an "on/off relationship" with a subordinate. After disputes arose, this subordinate sent excerpts of the WhatsApp-Chat traffic with the data subject to the works council chairman of the company they worked for. The chairman than forwarded this chat history containing highly intimate data to the human resources department (HR) which ultimately led to the termination of the data subject's employment. The data subject argued, among other things, that there was no legal basis under Article 6 GDPR for this disclosure and that the forwarding was both a violation of data protection law and of his general personal rights therefore entitling him to €5,000 plus interest in non-material damages from the works council's chairman pursuant to Article 82(1) GDPR. # The labor court dismissed the data subject's claim, holding that the data transfer was lawful under Article 6(1)(b) and (f) GDPR and [https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bdsg_2018/__26.html § 26(1) BDSG] (Federal Data Protection Act) in order to provide the employer with the most meaningful basis for examining the complaint of the data subject's subordinate. The court argued, that the scope of Article 6(b) GDPR also includes the transfer of data for the execution and termination of the employment contract of the data subject and his subordinate for the examination of possible measures by the employer. The data subject had not provided evidence the transferred personal data was irrelevant for the examination of the subordinate's complaint. # Furthermore the court argued, that the data subject has not provided evidence that the works council chairman did not act in his capacity as a works council member when forwarding the data to the human resources department, meaning that he would not have been personally liable to the plaintiff for compliance with data protection law in any case. According to [https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/betrvg/__79.html § 79a BetrVG] (Works Constitution Act), the

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 5 Ca 663/24 in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

20 November 2024

Authority

DPA ArbGBonn

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 5 Ca 663/24 - Germany (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: