Court case IX R 25/22 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2025)
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.
It is disputed to what extent the plaintiff (data subject) can demand information from the tax office (the controller) in accordance with Article 15 GDPR. The data subject requested "the disclosure of copies of all stored information" relating to him with reference to the GDPR, whereupon the controller sent various overviews. In this regard, the data subject complained that not all relevant documents had been made available in accordance with Article 15 GDPR. The controller interpreted this as a request for comprehensive inspection of the files, which was officially approved. The data subject then requested information pursuant to Article 15 GDPR. The controller declared its willingness to allow the inspection of the files to fulfill the access request. However, the sending of all files was refused. Before the Thuringian Fiscal Court (Thüringer Finanzgericht - FG Thüringen) the data subject pursued his access request under Article 15(1) GDPR and the provision of copies pursuant to Article 15(3) GDPR. The controller sent the data subject various overviews during the legal proceedings. The FG dimissed the data subject's claims. After that the data subject was granted access to the files concerning the proceedings. With the appeal to the Federal Finance Court (Bundesfinanzhof - BFH), the data subject complained that the access request was not yet fulfilled. It claimed, that the listing of internal agency processes does not constitute the provision of information and that the access request cannot be countered with the objection of disproportionate effort. The controller requested that the appeal be dismissed because the access request had already been complied with and because Article 15 GDPR does not give rise to any further right to full access to the files. The court held, that the first instance court had erred in assuming that the controller could object to the access request on the grounds that the required provision of information would involve disproportion
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
It is disputed to what extent the plaintiff (data subject) can demand information from the tax office (the controller) in accordance with Article 15 GDPR. The data subject requested "the disclosure of copies of all stored information" relating to him with reference to the GDPR, whereupon the controller sent various overviews. In this regard, the data subject complained that not all relevant documents had been made available in accordance with Article 15 GDPR. The controller interpreted this as a request for comprehensive inspection of the files, which was officially approved. The data subject then requested information pursuant to Article 15 GDPR. The controller declared its willingness to allow the inspection of the files to fulfill the access request. However, the sending of all files was refused. Before the Thuringian Fiscal Court (Thüringer Finanzgericht - FG Thüringen) the data subject pursued his access request under Article 15(1) GDPR and the provision of copies pursuant to Article 15(3) GDPR. The controller sent the data subject various overviews during the legal proceedings. The FG dimissed the data subject's claims. After that the data subject was granted access to the files concerning the proceedings. With the appeal to the Federal Finance Court (Bundesfinanzhof - BFH), the data subject complained that the access request was not yet fulfilled. It claimed, that the listing of internal agency processes does not constitute the provision of information and that the access request cannot be countered with the objection of disproportionate effort. The controller requested that the appeal be dismissed because the access request had already been complied with and because Article 15 GDPR does not give rise to any further right to full access to the files. The court held, that the first instance court had erred in assuming that the controller could object to the access request on the grounds that the required provision of information would involve disproportion
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case IX R 25/22 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case IX R 25/22 - Germany (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: