Person pretending to be the data subject – Court Ruling (Germany, 2024)
General GDPR enforcement action
This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
A person pretending to be the actual data subject filed a complaint against a court for not providing information as required by GDPR. The court found that this person did not prove their identity, which is necessary to pursue such claims. This ruling highlights the importance of verifying identity in legal complaints.
What happened
A person claimed to be the data subject but failed to prove their identity in a complaint against a court.
Who was affected
The person who claimed to be the data subject in the complaint.
What the authority found
The court decided that the individual did not demonstrate they were the actual data subject, which is required to proceed with the case.
Why this matters
This case emphasizes the need for individuals to establish their identity when making complaints. It serves as a reminder for anyone filing claims to ensure they can prove their identity.
GDPR Articles Cited
View original scraped data
Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.
On 2 May 2023, a person identifying themself under the name of the data subject lodged a complaint with the DPA against a controller, a court. This complaint alleged that the controller had not provided information as required by Article 13 and Article 14 GDPR. On 24 January 2024, the data subject filed an inactivity suit against the DPA on the same matter, requesting access to the administrative file. In a procedural order on 25 January 2024, the court requested the alleged data subject to provide proof of their identity within two weeks as there were doubts about whether the person acting in the case was in fact the data subject. On 6 February 2024, a submission arrived under the data subject’s name with a declaration of personal and economic circumstances and other documents, noting the data subject was unable to attend due to illness. A follow-up order on 9 February 2024 reminded the data subject of the identity requirement and sought justification for why access to the file should be transmitted in print or electronic form. No further response was received and no evidence of identity was provided. First, the court found that the person acting as the data subject had not demonstrated that they were the person affected by the underlying complaint procedure towards the supervisory authority. The court noted numerous indicators suggesting that the person acting in the procedure might not be the data subject, including failure to respond to repeated requests to prove identity, absence from the hearing, failure to provide requested medical evidence and personal/economic declarations. The court also referenced similar earlier cases by the same person (like 29 K 8881/22) where identity doubts had arisen. Because the person continued to press cases without establishing identity, the court stated it would in future simply file such claims rather than decide them. As a result, the objective and subjective elements of a legal interest in pursuing the alleged claim coul
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Person pretending to be the data subject in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Person pretending to be the data subject - Germany (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: