Court case Az. I ZB 36/25 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2025)

A data subject filed a lawsuit against a psychiatrist who had prepared a psychological report in family proceedings on behalf of a district court. The data subject claimed that the psychiatrist had unlawfully processed their personal data and relied on Article 79 GDPR. The District Court dismissed the action. The data subject then filed an appeal before the Regional Court, represented not by a lawyer but by a non-profit association. The Regional Court rejected the appeal as inadmissible because, under [https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_zpo/englisch_zpo.html § 78(1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung – ZPO)], parties before Regional and Higher Regional Courts must be represented by a lawyer. The data subject sought legal aid (Prozesskostenhilfe) to challenge this decision before the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH). The BGH rejected the application for legal aid because the prosecution did not offer a sufficient prospect of success. The Court clarified that Article 80(1) GDPR did not change the national rule in § 78(1) ZPO, which requires representation by a lawyer before higher courts. Article 80(1) GDPR allows certain non-profit organisations to act on behalf of data subjects in exercising rights under Articles 77, 78 and 79 GDPR, but it does not give these organisations the right to represent parties in court proceedings where legal representation is mandatory. The Court explained that Article 80(1) GDPR regulates the right of a data subject to authorise an organisation to act on their behalf, but it does not confer postulatory capacity or modify procedural requirements under national law.