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

Court case 2 O 49/24 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2025)

Court Ruling
DPA LGWiesbaden15 January 2025Germany
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 German court ruled on a case involving a credit rating agency that failed to provide a person's credit score. The court found that the agency did not violate GDPR because the person had not provided the necessary data for the agency to transfer. This decision clarifies the conditions under which data portability applies.

What happened

A person claimed their credit rating agency failed to provide their credit score as required under GDPR.

Who was affected

The individual who requested their credit score from the credit rating agency.

What the authority found

The court ruled that the credit rating agency did not violate GDPR because the individual had not supplied the required data for the transfer.

Why this matters

This case clarifies the requirements for data portability under GDPR, indicating that individuals must provide necessary data for such requests.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
View original scraped data
Art. 20(1) GDPR

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

Decision AuthorityLG Wiesbaden

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 19 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, 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 controller is a credit rating agency calculating credit scores based on personal data. The data subject filed a criminal complaint against the controller in April 2023 for allegedly unlawful storage of payment defaults and allegedly criminal conduct by its employees. As a response, the controller temporarily suspended the provision of information regarding the data subject's data to third parties. The criminal proceedings were eventually discontinued, however the controller only learned that during the ongoing civil proceedings. The controller informed the data subject that it would not disclose his data set again until he gave his written consent and waived any subsequent claims that might arise from the credit rating (damages/compensation for pain and suffering). The data subject did not make such a declaration. The data subject requested - inter alia - that the controller be ordered to pay the data subject non-material damages pursuant to Article 82 GDPR, because the controller failed to transmit the current credit score calculated by the controller in particular to two banks contrary to their right to data portability under Article 20(2) GDPR. Additionally, the data subject claimed, that the controller had a contractual obligation to forward the data. The controller requests that the action be dismissed. The controller argued, that even if potential contractual partners had refused to enter into credit-related agreements with the data subject, the corresponding damages would not have been caused by the controller or by the information it failed to provide. The court held, that the data subject is not entitled to damages under Article 82(1) GDPR. = The court found, that the controller had not violated the GDPR as according to Article 20(1) GDPR, the data in question must have been made available to the controller by the data subject to establish an obligation to transfer the data (i.e. the right to data portability). However, the data to be disclosed is no

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 2 O 49/24 in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

15 January 2025

Authority

DPA LGWiesbaden

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 2 O 49/24 - Germany (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: