Court case VI ZR 67/23 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2025)

Court Ruling
DPA OLGKoblenz13 May 2025Germany
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 controller is the operator of a debt collection company that serves clients from the energy sector, among others. On 16 July 2019, the controller notified SCHUFA, a credit information agency, of a claim against the data subject by his electricity supplier that was enforced by an order issued by the local court on the same day. On 12 November 2019, SCHUFA deleted the negative entry made on the basis of a report. The data subject filed a case with the court of first instance (Regional Court Mainz-VG Mainz) claiming that the controller’s notification of the claim to SCHUFA was unlawful because the controller did not wait for the objection period of the enforcement order to expire before doing so. The negative score created by SCHUFA as a result of the controller’s notification led to massive economic consequences and disadvantages for him, including the termination of his credit cards by his bank and the threat of failure of real estate financing. At first instance, the data subject requested, among other things, that the controller be ordered to pay him damages at least €10,000. The court of first instance partially granted his application and ordered the controller to pay him €5,000. Both parties appealed before the court of appeal (Higher Regional Court Koblenz-OLG Koblenz). The court of appeal dismissed the action in full. It held that the data subject failed to demonstrate that compensable immaterial damage had occurred. A mere threat of material damage or the fear of material damage is not sufficient in itself if no further consequences result from this, which was not apparent in the present case and was not substantiated by the data subject. It is not apparent how the alleged termination of his credit cards by the bank actually impaired the data subject’s economic freedom of disposition or how other infringements had occurred his general lifestyle. Overall, he failed to demonstrate how the "damaging event" specifically affected him. The data subject appe

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 82(1) GDPR
Decision AuthorityBGH
Reviewed AuthorityOLG Koblenz (Germany)
Full Legal Summary

The controller is the operator of a debt collection company that serves clients from the energy sector, among others. On 16 July 2019, the controller notified SCHUFA, a credit information agency, of a claim against the data subject by his electricity supplier that was enforced by an order issued by the local court on the same day. On 12 November 2019, SCHUFA deleted the negative entry made on the basis of a report. The data subject filed a case with the court of first instance (Regional Court Mainz-VG Mainz) claiming that the controller’s notification of the claim to SCHUFA was unlawful because the controller did not wait for the objection period of the enforcement order to expire before doing so. The negative score created by SCHUFA as a result of the controller’s notification led to massive economic consequences and disadvantages for him, including the termination of his credit cards by his bank and the threat of failure of real estate financing. At first instance, the data subject requested, among other things, that the controller be ordered to pay him damages at least €10,000. The court of first instance partially granted his application and ordered the controller to pay him €5,000. Both parties appealed before the court of appeal (Higher Regional Court Koblenz-OLG Koblenz). The court of appeal dismissed the action in full. It held that the data subject failed to demonstrate that compensable immaterial damage had occurred. A mere threat of material damage or the fear of material damage is not sufficient in itself if no further consequences result from this, which was not apparent in the present case and was not substantiated by the data subject. It is not apparent how the alleged termination of his credit cards by the bank actually impaired the data subject’s economic freedom of disposition or how other infringements had occurred his general lifestyle. Overall, he failed to demonstrate how the "damaging event" specifically affected him. The data subject appe

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case VI ZR 67/23 in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

13 May 2025

Authority

DPA OLGKoblenz

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 VI ZR 67/23 - Germany (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: