OVG RLP - 7 B 10360/23: Difference between revisions
m (→Holding) |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|Court_Original_Name=Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz 7. Senat | |Court_Original_Name=Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz 7. Senat | ||
|Court_English_Name=Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate 7th Senate | |Court_English_Name=Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate 7th Senate | ||
|Court_With_Country=OVG | |Court_With_Country=OVG Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) | ||
|Case_Number_Name=7 B 10360/23 | |Case_Number_Name=7 B 10360/23 | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
|Party_Link_3= | |Party_Link_3= | ||
|Appeal_From_Body=VG Mainz | |Appeal_From_Body=VG Mainz (Germany) | ||
|Appeal_From_Case_Number_Name=3 L 108/23 | |Appeal_From_Case_Number_Name=3 L 108/23 | ||
|Appeal_From_Status= | |Appeal_From_Status= | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
}} | }} | ||
A German court held that | A German court held that a car owner is obliged to disclose the identity of the car driver in light of the public authority's legitimate interest to prosecute traffic offences under [[Article 6 GDPR#1f|Article 6(1)(f) GDPR]] . | ||
== English Summary == | == English Summary == | ||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
=== Holding === | === Holding === | ||
The court of appeal upheld the first instance judgement. | The court of appeal upheld the first instance judgement. According to the court, both the disclosure of personal data of the drivers and the keeping of a log with personal data of the latter were permissable pursuant to [[Article 6 GDPR#1f|Article 6(1)(f) GDPR]]. As a legal basis, the controller could (and should) rely on the protection of the legitimate interests of the authorities in fulfilling tasks incumbent upon them in the public interest, which include the prosecution of administrative offences. Moreover, the court observed how the further stages of the processing were also permissable from the public authority side under [[Article 6 GDPR#1e|Article 6(1)(e) GDPR]]. | ||
According to the court, both the disclosure of personal data of the drivers and the keeping of a log with personal data of the latter were permissable pursuant to [[Article 6 GDPR#1f|Article 6(1)(f) GDPR]]. As a legal basis, the controller could (and should) rely on the protection of the legitimate interests of the authorities in fulfilling tasks incumbent upon them in the public interest, which include the prosecution of administrative offences. Moreover, the court observed how the further stages of the processing were also permissable from the public authority side under [[Article 6 GDPR#1e|Article 6(1)(e) GDPR]]. | |||
== Comment == | == Comment == | ||
Latest revision as of 15:10, 25 October 2023
| OVG RLP - 7 B 10360/23 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | OVG Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) |
| Jurisdiction: | Germany |
| Relevant Law: | Article 6(1)(e) GDPR Article 6(1)(f) GDPR German Road Traffic Licensing Regulations |
| Decided: | 20.06.2023 |
| Published: | |
| Parties: | VG Mainz |
| National Case Number/Name: | 7 B 10360/23 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | |
| Appeal from: | VG Mainz (Germany) 3 L 108/23 |
| Appeal to: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | German |
| Original Source: | JURIS (in German) |
| Initial Contributor: | Sainey Belle |
A German court held that a car owner is obliged to disclose the identity of the car driver in light of the public authority's legitimate interest to prosecute traffic offences under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR .
English Summary
Facts
The controller was a company that allowed their employees to use the company vehicle. One of these cars was used to commit traffic offences. During the police investigation, it was not established which employee had driven the car at that time. Therefore, the competent administration asked the controller to disclose the identity of the driver. In addition, the administration ordered the controller to keep a log of their vehicles, the people to which they were provided and other details concerning the services offered by the controller. The legal basis for such an obligation can be found in the German traffic law.
The controller refused to comply with the order and appealed it before a court. The controller argued that the GDPR precludes the disclosure of personal data of the driver(s) to the authorities and the keeping of a logbook with the drivers' names.
The first instance court rejected the claim and the controller appealed the decision before the Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate (Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, OVG Rheinland-Pfalz).
Holding
The court of appeal upheld the first instance judgement. According to the court, both the disclosure of personal data of the drivers and the keeping of a log with personal data of the latter were permissable pursuant to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. As a legal basis, the controller could (and should) rely on the protection of the legitimate interests of the authorities in fulfilling tasks incumbent upon them in the public interest, which include the prosecution of administrative offences. Moreover, the court observed how the further stages of the processing were also permissable from the public authority side under Article 6(1)(e) GDPR.
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.
If you see this message, you do not have JavaScript activated in your browser. Please activate JavaScript to use the citizen service.
