Court case Az. IX B 72/25 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2025)

A data subject submitted an access request under Article 15 GDPR to the court administration of the Financial Court Berlin-Brandenburg (Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg - FG). The data subject considered the response incomplete. Subsequently, they filed a complaint with the Brandenburg State Commissioner for Data Protection (Landesbeauftragter für den Datenschutz Brandenburg) under Article 77 GDPR but did not receive a reply within three months. The data subject then brought an action for inaction under Article 78(2) GDPR against the supervisory authority. They requested that the authority order the court administration to answer their access request immediately and completely. The Financial Court referred the dispute to the local Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht - VG), stating that the German Fiscal Code gives financial courts jurisdiction only for GDPR disputes concerning tax authorities and tax matters. The data subject challenged this referral, arguing that the court administration is a public body, its data processing occurs in a tax context, and the financial courts were therefore competent. The Bundesfinanzhof (BFH) rejected the complaint. It held that a request under Article 15 GDPR to a court administration does not involve processing by a tax authority and is not a tax matter. The granting or refusal of access by a court administration constitutes general administrative activity, not judicial activity. Therefore, the German Fiscal Code does not grant financial courts jurisdiction. The BFH confirmed that the correct legal route for an inaction complaint under Article 78(2) GDPR in this context is through the administrative courts. The referral by the Financial Court to the local Administrative Court was lawful. The data subject’s appeal against the referral was dismissed, and the costs were to be borne by the data subject.