Court case 3 C 29/23 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2024)

Court Ruling
DPA AGLrrach20 December 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, a holder of an insurance policy of an insurance company (the controller), sued after the controller adjusted the premium amounts of their policy. The data subject claimed the adjustments were not fully communicated in accordance with the German Insurance Contract Act ([https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vvg_2008/ Versicherungsvertragsgesetz] - VVG), which mandates that reasons for premium changes be disclosed, including whether they are temporary or permanent. The contract between the data subject and the controller had been in place for several years, with premium adjustments occurring over time. The data subject argued that the controller did not provide adequate information about these adjustments. They also sought access to personal data related to their insurance policy under Article 15 GDPR, including details of premium adjustments, tariff changes, and policy terminations. The controller denied the request, asserting that the necessary information had already been provided. The court held that the data subject's claim for information under Article 15(1) GDPR was justified. The personal data in question, relating to the data subject’s insurance relationship, were considered personal data as per Article 4(1) GDPR. The controller was required to provide information on the processing of these personal data, which included the time and amount of premium adjustments, tariff changes, and tariff terminations. The court rejected the controller’s argument that the data subject's request was abusive according to Article 12(5)(b) GDPR. It emphasized that the GDPR grants a very strong right to information, aimed at ensuring transparency and data sovereignty. The data subject’s request was not deemed excessive, as it sought data related to his own contractual relationship and indicated that he no longer had access to the information. The court affirmed that the controller could not deny the request based on the data subject's potential economic intere

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 15(1) GDPR
Decision AuthorityAG Lörrach
Full Legal Summary

The data subject, a holder of an insurance policy of an insurance company (the controller), sued after the controller adjusted the premium amounts of their policy. The data subject claimed the adjustments were not fully communicated in accordance with the German Insurance Contract Act ([https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vvg_2008/ Versicherungsvertragsgesetz] - VVG), which mandates that reasons for premium changes be disclosed, including whether they are temporary or permanent. The contract between the data subject and the controller had been in place for several years, with premium adjustments occurring over time. The data subject argued that the controller did not provide adequate information about these adjustments. They also sought access to personal data related to their insurance policy under Article 15 GDPR, including details of premium adjustments, tariff changes, and policy terminations. The controller denied the request, asserting that the necessary information had already been provided. The court held that the data subject's claim for information under Article 15(1) GDPR was justified. The personal data in question, relating to the data subject’s insurance relationship, were considered personal data as per Article 4(1) GDPR. The controller was required to provide information on the processing of these personal data, which included the time and amount of premium adjustments, tariff changes, and tariff terminations. The court rejected the controller’s argument that the data subject's request was abusive according to Article 12(5)(b) GDPR. It emphasized that the GDPR grants a very strong right to information, aimed at ensuring transparency and data sovereignty. The data subject’s request was not deemed excessive, as it sought data related to his own contractual relationship and indicated that he no longer had access to the information. The court affirmed that the controller could not deny the request based on the data subject's potential economic intere

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 C 29/23 in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

20 December 2024

Authority

DPA AGLrrach

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 3 C 29/23 - Germany (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: