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

Court case I ZR 115/25 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2025)

Court Ruling
DPA OLGDresden18 December 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.

Germany's Federal Court ruled on a case involving a credit agency that stored payment default records even after they were settled. The court decided that the agency's continued storage of this data was not justified. This ruling impacts how credit agencies manage consumer data and reinforces the need for timely deletion of settled debts.

What happened

The court ruled that SCHUFA must delete records of settled payment defaults, as their continued storage was unlawful.

Who was affected

The individual whose payment defaults were recorded by SCHUFA was affected by this ruling.

What the authority found

The court found that the continued storage of settled payment defaults violated data protection laws and did not meet necessary legal standards.

Why this matters

This decision emphasizes the importance of data minimization and timely deletion of personal data by credit agencies. It serves as a reminder for companies to regularly review their data retention practices.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 15 GDPR
Art. 12(5) GDPR
Art. 15(1) GDPR
Art. 15(3) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 12(5) GDPR
Art. 15(GDPR)
Art. 15(1) GDPR
Art. 15(3) GDPR

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

Decision AuthorityBGH
Reviewed AuthorityOLG Dresden

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 19 March 2026.

Processing notes: authority corrected, articles 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 data subject had private health and long-term care insurance with the controller since 2010. Over the years, the controller adjusted the monthly insurance premiums several times, and informed the data subject of these adjustments through policy supplements and standardised explanatory letters, which the data subject no longer possessed. In March 2023, the data subject requested that the controller provide copies of the documents relating to past premium adjustments. After the controller refused, the data subject brought an action seeking access under Article 15(1) and (3) GDPR. Specifically, the data subject requested information concerning the contribution history of the insurance contract, including the dates and amounts of old and new premiums, tariff changes, and tariff terminations for several years. The court of first instance dismissed the claim. On appeal, the appellate court partially upheld the data subject’s request, holding that the requested information constituted personal data and therefore fell within the scope of Article 15 GDPR. The controller appealed to the Federal Court of Justice. The controller argued that the requested information did not constitute personal data because premium adjustments and tariff information were determined on an abstract, tariff-based basis and were not linked to the individual data subject. It further argued that the data subject’s request constituted an abuse of rights, as it was intended to prepare a repayment claim rather than to exercise data protection rights. The Court upheld the appeal, set aside the appellate judgment, and referred the case back for a new decision. The Court confirmed that Article 15 GDPR applies irrespective of the data subject’s motivation and that a request for access cannot be refused merely because it serves purposes unrelated to data protection. It also rejected the controller’s argument that the request constituted an abuse of rights under Article 12(5) GDPR. However, the Court hel

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case I ZR 115/25 in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

18 December 2025

Authority

DPA OLGDresden

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 I ZR 115/25 - Germany (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: