UF (data subject and claimant before national court) – CJEU Judgment (Germany, 2023)

CJEU Judgment
Court of Justice of the European Union7 December 2023Germany
final
CJEU Judgment

CJEU judgment — not a DPA enforcement action

This is a Court of Justice ruling, not an enforcement action by a data protection authority. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

The data subjects UF and AB underwent insolvency proceeding in Germany and were granted an early discharge from remaining debts by court decisions of 17 December 2020 and 23 March 2021 respectively. In accordance with § 9(1) Insolvenzordnung (Insolvency Code) and § 3(1)(2) InsBekV (Regulation on public notifications in insolvency proceedings on the internet), the official publication of these decisions on the debt discharges in the German insolvency register was erased after 6 months. SCHUFA Holding AG (SCHUFA), a German credit information agency had recorded these decisions on debt discharges in their own data bases and intended to store it for three years after registration, in accordance with a code of conduct under Article 40 GDPR approved by the competent DPA. UF and AB requested SCHUFA to erase the (no longer public) decisions on the debt discharges. SCHUFA refused and UF and AB lodged complaints with the Hessian DPA (HBDI) under Article 77 GDPR. The HBDI dismissed the complaints, finding SCHUFA's processing lawful. UF and AB each brought an action under Article 78 GDPR against the HBDI's decisions before the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (VG Wiesbaden), arguing that the HBDI was obliged to take measures in respect of SCHUFA to enforce the erasure of the entries concerning them. The HBDI requested the dismissal of the actions, arguing that Article 77(1) GDPR constitutes a mere "right of petition". Hence the VG Wiesbaden could only review whether the HBDI handled the complaints and informed the complainants of their progress and outcome but not review the substantive correctness of the decisions. On UF's and AB's requests for erasure, the HBDI argued that SCHUFA could store the decisions on debt discharges for as long as is necessary for the purpose of processing (i.e. assessing the creditworthiness of UF and AB) and that the storage period of three years after entry in the file according to the code of conduct should apply. The VG Wiesbaden doubted the HBDI’s

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 40 GDPR
Art. 6(1) GDPR
Art. 17(1)(d) GDPR
Art. 77(1) GDPR
Art. 78(1) GDPR

National Law Articles

§ 3 Verordnung zu öffentlichen Bekanntmachungen in Insolvenzverfahren im Internet (InsBekV)
§ 9(1) Insolvenzordnung
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=271345&doclang=en
Decision AuthorityCJEU
Reviewed AuthorityVG Wiesbaden (Germany)
Full Legal Summary

The data subjects UF and AB underwent insolvency proceeding in Germany and were granted an early discharge from remaining debts by court decisions of 17 December 2020 and 23 March 2021 respectively. In accordance with § 9(1) Insolvenzordnung (Insolvency Code) and § 3(1)(2) InsBekV (Regulation on public notifications in insolvency proceedings on the internet), the official publication of these decisions on the debt discharges in the German insolvency register was erased after 6 months. SCHUFA Holding AG (SCHUFA), a German credit information agency had recorded these decisions on debt discharges in their own data bases and intended to store it for three years after registration, in accordance with a code of conduct under Article 40 GDPR approved by the competent DPA. UF and AB requested SCHUFA to erase the (no longer public) decisions on the debt discharges. SCHUFA refused and UF and AB lodged complaints with the Hessian DPA (HBDI) under Article 77 GDPR. The HBDI dismissed the complaints, finding SCHUFA's processing lawful. UF and AB each brought an action under Article 78 GDPR against the HBDI's decisions before the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (VG Wiesbaden), arguing that the HBDI was obliged to take measures in respect of SCHUFA to enforce the erasure of the entries concerning them. The HBDI requested the dismissal of the actions, arguing that Article 77(1) GDPR constitutes a mere "right of petition". Hence the VG Wiesbaden could only review whether the HBDI handled the complaints and informed the complainants of their progress and outcome but not review the substantive correctness of the decisions. On UF's and AB's requests for erasure, the HBDI argued that SCHUFA could store the decisions on debt discharges for as long as is necessary for the purpose of processing (i.e. assessing the creditworthiness of UF and AB) and that the storage period of three years after entry in the file according to the code of conduct should apply. The VG Wiesbaden doubted the HBDI’s

Outcome

CJEU Judgment

A judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union, typically on a preliminary reference from a national court.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for UF (data subject and claimant before national court) in DE

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

Details

Judgment Date

7 December 2023

Authority

Court of Justice of the European Union

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
AI-verified and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. UF (data subject and claimant before national court) - Germany (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: