Enforcing jurisdiction
Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation
No confirmed legal basis recorded.

Court case 6 C 1.24 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2025)

Court Ruling
DPA OVGNordrhein-Westfal5 November 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.

A German court ruled that a public authority must keep an employee's home address confidential due to potential threats. This decision highlights the importance of protecting individuals in sensitive roles from possible harm. It shows that privacy can be prioritized even when public transparency is at stake.

What happened

The court confirmed that a public authority must block the disclosure of an employee's home address due to risks associated with their job.

Who was affected

The employee of the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) who faced threats due to their work.

What the authority found

The court decided that an address can be blocked if there are objective facts indicating that revealing it could endanger a person's safety, even without a specific threat.

Why this matters

This ruling emphasizes the need for organizations to assess risks to their employees' safety and privacy. It sets a precedent for balancing public information rights with individual privacy protections.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 5 GDPR
Art. 6 GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 5(GDPR)
Art. 6(GDPR)

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

Decision AuthorityBVerwG
Reviewed AuthorityOVG Nordrhein-Westfalen

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 19 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified, 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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The data subject was employed by the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin), the public authority responsible for supervising banks, financial service providers, and insurance companies. He worked as a case officer in a specialised unit dealing with serious financial misconduct, including organised crime and terrorism financing. Due to their work, employees in this unit regularly issue binding decisions, conduct on-site inspections, and may appear as witnesses in criminal proceedings, which makes them identifiable to affected persons. Because several employees in this unit had been threatened in the past, the data subject’s home address had been blocked from disclosure in the population register for many years. When the blocking period expired, he applied for a renewal. The local registration authority refused the request on the ground that no individual threat against the claimant had been demonstrated. The lower administrative court dismissed the data subject’s appeal against the authority’s decision, while the Higher Administrative Court ordered the renewal after the data subject also appealed the first instance court’s decision. The registration authority appealed to the Federal Administrative Court. The Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed that the blocking of the address had to be granted. The Court held that an address may be blocked where there are objectively verifiable facts showing that disclosure could endanger a person’s life, health, personal freedom, or similarly protected interests. This requires an individualised risk assessment, but it does not require that the applicant has already been personally threatened. Risks arising from a specific professional activity may suffice, particularly where other persons performing essentially the same tasks have been subjected to threats or attacks. In this case, the Court had to find a balance between the public’s right to transparency of information, and the employee’s right to privacy an

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 6 C 1.24 in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

5 November 2025

Authority

DPA OVGNordrhein-Westfal

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 6 C 1.24 - Germany (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: