- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case 29 K 6375/25 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2025)
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 court ruled that a company properly responded to a user's request for information about their data within the required timeframe. This decision clarifies what is expected from companies when handling access requests under GDPR.
What happened
The court found that the company provided a status report on a data access request within the one-month deadline.
Who was affected
A user who requested access to their personal data held by the company.
What the authority found
The court determined that the company's response met the requirements of GDPR regarding the timeline for providing status updates on access requests.
Why this matters
This case highlights the importance of timely communication from companies when users request access to their data. It sets a precedent for how access requests should be managed.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 20 March 2026.
Processing notes: 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
On 16 May 2025, the data subject made an access request to the controller by letter. On 20 May 2025, the controller informed him that his letter had been received and that his request was being examined, but clarification could take time. On 23 June 2025, the data subject brought a case before the court of first instance (Administrative Court Düsseldorf -VG Düsseldorf), claiming that the controller failed to satisfy his request. The court pointed out that the one month deadline in Article 12(3) GDPR only refers to the provision of the status report on the measures taken pursuant to the request. According to the court, it does not set a deadline for the fulfillment of the rights or claims of the data subject enshrined in Articles 15-22 GDPR. In this case the controller provided the data subject with a status report in due time. Therefore, it complied with its obligation to inform the data subject of the measures taken to satisfy his request for information within the one-month period pursuant to Article 12(3) GDPR. The court found the action inadmissible.
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 29 K 6375/25 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Ruling Date
5 September 2025
Authority
DPA VGDsseldorf
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 29 K 6375/25 - Germany (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: