View source for LAG Düsseldorf - 4 Ta 413/19

{{COURTdecisionBOX

|Jurisdiction=Germany
|Court-BG-Color=
|Courtlogo=CourtsDE-NW.png
|Court_Abbrevation=LAG Düsseldorf
|Court_With_Country=LAG Düsseldorf (Germany)

|Case_Number_Name=4 Ta 413/19
|ECLI=ECLI:DE:LAGD:2019:1216.4TA413.19.00

|Original_Source_Name_1=NRWE
|Original_Source_Link_1=https://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/arbgs/duesseldorf/lag_duesseldorf/j2019/NRWE_LAG_D_sseldorf_4_Ta_413_19_Beschluss_20191216.html
|Original_Source_Language_1=German
|Original_Source_Language__Code_1=DE

|Date_Decided=16.12.2019
|Date_Published=
|Year=2019



|National_Law_Name_1=§ 23(3) Second Sentence, second half RVG
|National_Law_Link_1=https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_rvg/index.html
|National_Law_Name_2=§ 32 (1) RVG
|National_Law_Link_2=https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_rvg/index.html
|National_Law_Name_3=§ 68(1) Fifth Sentence
|National_Law_Link_3=https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gkg_2004/BJNR071810004.html

|Party_Name_1=
|Party_Link_1=
|Party_Name_2=
|Party_Link_2=
|Party_Name_3=
|Party_Link_3=
|Party_Name_4=
|Party_Link_4=
|Party_Name_5=
|Party_Link_5=

|Appeal_From_Body=ArbG Düsseldorf
|Appeal_From_Case_Number_Name=7 Ca 3593/19
|Appeal_From_Status=
|Appeal_From_Link=
|Appeal_To_Body=
|Appeal_To_Case_Number_Name=
|Appeal_To_Status=
|Appeal_To_Link=

|Initial_Contributor=ManTechnologist
|
}}

The parties argue about the value in dispute of a request for information under Article 15 GDPR.

== English Summary ==

=== Facts ===
The ArbG Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf Labour Court) had set the amount in dispute at 500 euros. The party obliged to provide information refers to the fact that providing information would mean that the expenses incurred would be higher than 500 Euro. The ArbG Düsseldorf did not remedy the appeal and referred the case to the LAG Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf Higher Labour Court) for decision.

=== Dispute ===


=== Holding ===
The value of a request for information under Art. 15 GDPR is 500.00 euros, unless special circumstances arise

== Comment ==
''Share your comments here!''

== Further Resources ==
''Share blogs or news articles here!''

== English Machine Translation of the Decision ==
The decision below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details.

<pre>
REASONS:

I.

In their timely lodged complaint, the complainants object to the determination of the subject value of the legal activity for the application for information under Art. 15 GDPR at EUR 500.00. The complaint seeks a determination of 2,000.00 euros and refers to the expenditure incurred by the party obliged to provide information in providing the information. The Labour Court did not rectify the appeal and referred the matter to the Board of Appeal for a decision.

II.

The admissible appeal is unfounded. The Labour Court correctly assessed the value of the right to information under Art. 15 DSGVO in the constellation given here at

1. the dispute is not a dispute relating to property rights within the meaning of Article 23(3), second sentence, second paragraph, of the RVG The right to information under Art. 15 DSGVO is rooted in the personal rights of the creditor. The claim does not primarily serve economic interests. It is not evident that such interests exist in the given case and are to be enforced with the request for information, and thus, exceptionally, the creditor's economic interest could be decisive for the assessment of the subject matter of the dispute.

2) Pursuant to Section 23 (3) sentence 2 second sentence of the RVG, in the absence of sufficient factual evidence for an estimate and in the case of non-pecuniary objects, the value of the object is to be assumed to be EUR 5,000.00, depending on the circumstances of the case lower or higher, but not higher than EUR 500,000.00. According to the consistent case law of the regional labour courts, the material significance of the object, its difficulty and its scope are taken as the yardstick for determining the value. In the first instance, the applicant's point of view is decisive. In addition, the economic effects of the request and the legal and factual particularities of the case must be taken into account appropriately (see for example LAG Düsseldorf, 12.12.2016, 4 Ta 529/16; LAG Düsseldorf, 09.01.2017 - 4 Ta 630/16, both juris).

Based on this, the value of a request for information according to Art. 15 DSGVO is to be assessed at 500.00 Euro, unless special circumstances arise (similar to OLG Cologne, 05.02.2018 - 9 U 120/17, juris [600.00 Euro]). For it is not recognisable in the present case that the personal rights of the information creditor would be affected in a way that would go beyond the simple, mass granted right to information, which is intended to satisfy a general interest in information (as a result also for the assessment of the creditor's interest OLG Cologne, 05.02.2018 - 9 U 120/17, juris). The difficulty and scope of the case do not give rise to any indications of a higher value assessment, as it is a simple point of contention that is not disputed in the matter and difficult to assess. If, in addition, the economic effects of the claim are taken into account, there is no indication on the creditor's side for a higher valuation, as explained above.

If, in addition, the effort to be made on the part of the debtor is taken into account in an appropriate manner when assessing the value, nothing else results. In view of the consistent availability of EDP technology, the expense is extremely low (see, for example, on the assessment of the so-called defence interest of a debtor ordered to provide information, BGH 07.11.2017 - II ZB 4/17, juris [400.00 Euro] and OLG Cologne, 20.12.2018 - 19 U 169/18, juris [600.00 Euro]). The complainants have already been informed of this in a court letter of 8 November 2019, without any reaction.

3.there is no need to adjudicate on costs. Pursuant to § 68 (3) GKG, the procedure is free of charge; costs are not reimbursed.

There is no right of appeal against this decision (Section 32 (1) RVG, Section 68 (1) sentence 5, Section 66 (3) sentence 3 GKG).
</pre>