VG Schwerin - 1 A 1343/19 SN: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{COURTdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Germany |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png |Court_Abbrevation=VG Schwerin |Court_With_Country=VG Schwerin (Germany) |Case_Number...") |
(rectified date of decision) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|Original_Source_Language__Code_1=DE | |Original_Source_Language__Code_1=DE | ||
|Date_Decided= | |Date_Decided=29.04.2021 | ||
|Date_Published= | |Date_Published= | ||
|Year=2034 | |Year=2034 | ||
Revision as of 10:27, 21 June 2021
| VG Schwerin - 1 A 1343/19 SN | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | VG Schwerin (Germany) |
| Jurisdiction: | Germany |
| Relevant Law: | Art 2 EUV 2016/679 Art 4 EUV 2016/679 Art 15 Abs 1 EUV 2016/679 Art 15 Abs 3 EUV 2016/679 Art 15 Abs 4 EUV 2016/679 Art 58 Abs 2 EUV 2016/679 Art 12 EUV 2016/679 § 2 UrhG § 17 UrhG § 19a UrhG § 31 UrhG |
| Decided: | 29.04.2021 |
| Published: | |
| Parties: | Expert office Property owner |
| National Case Number/Name: | 1 A 1343/19 SN |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:DE:VGSCHWE:2021:0429.1A1343.19.00 |
| Appeal from: | |
| Appeal to: | Appealed - Confirmed |
| Original Language(s): | German |
| Original Source: | landesrecht-mv.de (in German) |
| Initial Contributor: | Lejla Rizvanovik |
Sections 15, Paragraph 2, No. 2, 19 a UrhG do not preclude disclosure because it does not affect the right to make them publicly available, since the expert opinion should only be made known to the party invited.
English Summary
Facts
A property owner made an access request with an expert office, which refused to provide a real estate evidence preservation report, claiming that it has no personal data within.
Dispute
Art. 15 para. 3 GDPR includes the issuing of a complete copy of such an opinion to the owner affected by data protection law
Holding
The court held, that handing over a complete copy (Art. 15 Para. 3 GDPR) of a real estate evidence preservation report according to Art. 58 Para. 2 Letter c GDPR to the owner of an examined object is lawful.
Comment
According to Art. 4 Nr. 1 GDPR, it is justified to regard the expert opinion at issue here as a personal data. It is not a mere factual date, as the plaintiff thinks.
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.
