LG Leipzig - 03 O 1268/21

LG Leipzig - 03 O 1268/21
Court:	LG Leipzig (Germany)
Jurisdiction:	Germany
Relevant Law:	Article 15(3) GDPR Article 82(1) GDPR
Decided:	23.12.2021
Published:
Parties:	Law firm
National Case Number/Name:	03 O 1268/21
European Case Law Identifier:	ECLI:DE:LGLEIPZ:2021:1223.03O1268.21.0A
Appeal from:
Appeal to:	Unknown
Original Language(s):	German
Original Source:	rewis.io (in German)
Initial Contributor:	Fabian Dechent

The Regional Court of Leipzig held that a data subject cannot claim compensation for a delayed right of access if they did not suffer a subsequent non-material disadvantage.

English Summary

Facts

The data subject is a client of a law firm, acting as a controller. The controller sued the data subject for payment of attorney's fees. The data subject counterclaims for their right of access pursuant to Article 15 GDPR, in particular to provide a copy of the personal data pursuant to Article 15(3) GDPR, as well as their right to receive compensation for damages suffered pursuant to Article 82 GDPR.

The controller is of the opinion that it already provided the data subject with a copy of personal data as all incoming and outgoing documents were sent to the data subject without undue delay. Furthermore, it claimed that there is only a right to copies of those data that contain concrete information about the data subject. The controller also believes that the claim is time-barred.

According to the data subject, the controller did not provide a copy of all personal data. The right to a copy of the personal data also includes a copy of the manual files of the controller. The data subject claims that they are entitled to the payment of damages suffering for the delayed and still incomplete provision of the personal data.

Holding

The court held that the data subject is entitled to claim for the controller to receive a copy of all personal data including a copy of personal data contained in the manual files. Since the counterclaim was served to the controller on 4 February 2021 and thus before the expiry of a standard limitation period of three years, calculated from the entry into force of the GDPR, the claim cannot be time-barred.

The court further held that the data subject is not entitled to claim compensation for the delayed right of access. The violation of the GDPR alone is not sufficient to trigger a claim for damages. Rather, the data subject affected by a data protection violation must have suffered a noticeable disadvantage. There must be an objectively comprehensible impairment of personal interests that carries a certain weight and of a certain significance. It is undisputed that the non-material disadvantages referred to in Recital 75 GDPR did not arise for the data subject.

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.

tenor
1. The default judgment of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Regional Court of Leipzig, Az.: 03 O 1268/21, becomes a lawsuit in the amount of a partial amount of €1,814.28 plus interest from this amounting to 5 percentage points above the respective base interest rate annually since 08.01. maintained in 2017.2. Otherwise, the default judgment of August 26, 2021 is ineffective with regard to the statement on the complaint under number 1 of the default judgment.3. The further claims (first main claim as well as first and second auxiliary claims from the pleading of November 18, 2021) are dismissed.4. With regard to the decision on the counterclaim of May 10, 2021, the default judgment of August 26, 2021 is maintained. The further counterclaim with the application under number 2 of the brief of the defendant dated November 11th, 2021 is dismissed.6. With regard to the decision on the counterclaim in accordance with the defendant's brief of December 28, 2020, the default judgment of August 26, 2021 is reversed. The plaintiff is sentenced to inform the defendant about the information letter dated March 4th, 2020, the annexes K 32 (memo of conversation dated October 20th, 2016) and K 35 (request for costing dated December 19th, 2019 in the procedure 337 F 3643/ 15), Annexes K 43 - K 46 to her pleading of July 12, 2021 and Annexes K 47 - K 63 to her pleading of August 9, 2021 in the present proceedings, complete data information within the meaning of Art. 15 (3) in connection with Art. 4 No. 1 and 6 DS-GVO on the personal data available to the plaintiff about the defendant, regardless of the form in which the plaintiff has it, by sending a copy of the same, including a copy of the reference files of Plaintiff to the clients led for the defendant regarding the legal affairs AG Leipzig 337 F 1220/15, 337 F 1338/15, 337 F 1503/15, 337 F 1616/15, 337 F 3484/15, 337 F 3643/15, 337 F 1033/16, 442 M 10036/16 and 442 M 21 343/16 and a copy of the accounting transactions relating to the defendant (incoming/outgoing payments with the respective posting date, purpose and payment ordering party/payee).7. It is established that the legal dispute is largely settled insofar as the plaintiff has provided the defendant with data information by submitting Annexes K 47 - K 63 to its brief of August 9th, 2021.8. Of the costs of the legal dispute, the defendant bears the costs of its default in the deadline of August 26, 2021 in advance. The plaintiff bears 3/5 and the defendant 2/5.9 of the further costs of the legal dispute. The judgment is provisionally enforceable for the plaintiff against security of 120% of the amount to be recovered. Enforcement from the default judgment of August 26, 2021 may only be continued if this security is provided. For the defendant, the judgment is provisionally enforceable because of the costs. The plaintiff may avert enforcement of the defendant because of the costs by providing security in the amount of 120% of the amount to be recovered in each case if the defendant does not provide security in the same amount before enforcement. If the plaintiff was sentenced to provide data information, the judgment is for the defendant is provisionally enforceable against a security deposit of €1,000. Amount in dispute: €8,901.19
facts
The plaintiff is suing the defendant for payment of attorney's fees. The defendant counterclaims for data information from the plaintiff and the payment of compensation for pain and suffering. The plaintiff represented the defendant as a lawyer in divorce proceedings against her former spouse E. F., who has since died, before the district court of Leipzig to Az.: 337 F 1033/16, in a proceeding before the district court Leipzig because of parental care for Az.: 337 F 3643/15 and in a maintenance matter before the Leipzig District Court for Az.: 337 F 1616/15, furthermore in the enforcement matter for the Leipzig District Court for Az.: 442 M 1036/16, finally in the proceedings before the District Court of Leipzig to the Az.: 337 F 1220/15, 337 F 1338/15, 337 F 1503/15, 337 F 3484/15 and 442 M 21343/16 The plaintiff ceased her legal work in the proceedings of the district court of Leipzig for the case no.: 337 F 3643/15 in the amount of €286.91. With a further fee note dated October 21, 2016, the plaintiff invoiced her work in the proceedings of the Leipzig District Court for Az.: 337 F 1616/15 in the amount of a further €571.44 Proceedings of the district court of Leipzig to Az.: 337 F 1033/16 in the amount of €1,242.84. Due to the content of the aforementioned fee notes, reference is made to Annex K1. On November 25th, 2016, the defendant sent the plaintiff an undated letter of termination (Annex K 8). In the proceedings of the District Court of Leipzig for file no.: 337 F 1033/16, the plaintiff applied for remuneration determination against the defendant on December 19, 2019 for an invoice amount of €1,358.86 (Annex K 11). The defendant contradicted this on February 5, 2020 (Annex K 12). With the decision of the district court of Leipzig of April 7th, 2020, Az.: 337 F 1033/16, the application for the determination of remuneration was rejected (Annex K 13). The plaintiff's immediate appeal against this was rejected by the Dresden Higher Regional Court by decision of May 20, 2020 (Annex K 41). Regarding the file number of the Leipzig District Court 337 F 1616/15, the plaintiff applied for compensation determination against the defendant on December 19, 2019 for an invoice amount of €571.44. The defendant contradicted this on February 4th, 2020. The application for the determination of remuneration was rejected by decision of the district court of Leipzig on April 7th, 2020, file no.: 337 F 1616/15. The plaintiff's immediate appeal against this was rejected by the Dresden Higher Regional Court by decision of August 3rd, 2020, Az.: 18 WF 667/20. The defendant requested the plaintiff on February 4th, 2020 (Annex K 24) to provide her with a to provide a copy of complete data information about all data relating to them that the plaintiff has about them. The plaintiff then provided the information shown in Annex K 35 on March 4th, 2020. The plaintiff is of the opinion that she is entitled to the invoiced lawyer's fee in the amount claimed. There is no right to the surrender of copies of the reference files and it is also time-barred. In the law firm of the plaintiff, all incoming and outgoing documents were sent to the clients without delay. Because of this, the defendant already has all copies of the reference files. All files in the defendant's affairs were filed and archived. Art. 15 para. 3 DS-GVO is to be reduced teleologically. A right to information and a copy of all existing data is not compatible with the spirit and purpose of the provision. There is only a right to copies of the data that contains specific information about the person concerned. The DS-GVO only applies from June 25th, 2018 and therefore not for the mandates that ended on October 28th, 2016. During the period at issue, the plaintiff had no E -File kept. All of the defendant's factual files were deleted, archived and only existed in paper form. The plaintiff did not store any data relating to the defendant on the extremely intimate matters of her personal life. Other cost notes from the plaintiff also remained unpaid, which were not asserted for reasons of limitation . In the disputed matters, the defendant - which was not disputed - did not pay a cent. The claimant's claims for fees were not statute-barred, since the applications for the determination of remuneration had interrupted the statute of limitations. It is true that the plaintiff's application of December 19, 2019 is not part of the file of the Leipzig District Court 337 F 3643/15. The plaintiff did not receive any third-party funds. The designation in the accounts receivable presented as Annex K 44, Section 367, incoming debtor’s foreign money is the designation of incoming payments from the debtor, stating the clearing rule, as they were entered into the claimant’s account. These are exclusively payments by the debtor E.F. directly to the defendant's account. The parties agreed through their legal representation in a telephone call on October 21, 2021 that the defendant would pay the plaintiff's shareholders €1,050.60 as joint creditor , the present legal dispute, both with regard to the claim and the counterclaim, was thus settled in all parts, and the court should decide on the costs of the legal dispute at its reasonable discretion according to § 91 a ZPO. A settlement agreement was concluded as a result of these matching declarations of intent. With a default judgment of the chamber dated August 26, 2001, the defendant was ordered to pay €2,101.19 in the main and the counterclaim was dismissed. The defendant already has an objection to the default judgment served on September 9, 2021 on September 3rd, 2021 an objection was filed. The plaintiff is now applying for 1. Main application to establish that the legal dispute was ended by the following settlement of the parties: The default judgment of August 26, 2021 is reversed and the defendant pays the plaintiffs an amount of €1,050.60 as joint creditors. The present legal dispute, both with regard to the claim and the counterclaim, is thus settled in all parts. The court will decide on the costs of the legal dispute at its reasonable discretion in accordance with § 91 a ZPO.1. Auxiliary application to determine that the legal dispute was ended by the following settlement of the parties: The default judgment of August 26, 2021 is reversed and the defendant pays to the shareholders of the plaintiff, A. and M. L., as joint and several creditors, an amount of €1,050.50. The present legal dispute, both with regard to the claim and the counterclaim, is thus settled in all parts. The court will decide on the costs of the legal dispute at its reasonable discretion in accordance with § 91 a ZPO.2. Auxiliary application to establish that the legal dispute was ended by the following settlement of the parties: The default judgment of August 26, 2021 is reversed and the defendant pays the plaintiff and its shareholders A. and M. L. an amount of €1,050.60 as joint creditors. The present legal dispute, both with regard to the claim and the counterclaim, is thus settled in all parts. The court will decide on the costs of the legal dispute at its reasonable discretion in accordance with § 91 a ZPO.3. Auxiliary application to uphold the default judgment of August 26, 2021 with the proviso that the defendant is sentenced to pay the plaintiff €1,814.28 plus interest therefrom in the amount of 5 percentage points above the respective base interest rate annually from €571.44 since January 8th, 2017 and from 1,242 84 € since January 8th, 2017. The defendant requests that the default judgment of August 26th, 2021 be set aside and the lawsuit dismissed and the plaintiff counterclaimed as follows: of June 25, 2021 submitted Annexes K 32 (memo of October 20, 2016) and K 35 (application for cost fixing dated December 19, 2019 in the procedure 337 F 3643/15), Annexes K 43-K 46 to her brief of July 12, 2021 and the annexes K 47 - K 63 to her brief of August 9th, 2021 in the present proceedings, a complete data information within the meaning of Art. 15 Para. 3 in connection with Art. 4 No. 1 and 6 DS - GVO to the plaintiff about di e Defendant to provide existing personal data, regardless of the form in which the plaintiff has them, by sending a copy of the same, including a copy of the plaintiff's reference files to the defendant's client regarding the legal affairs AG Leipzig 337 F 1220/15 , 337 F 1338/15, 337 F 1503/16, 337 F 1616/15, 337 F 3484/15, 337 F 3643/15, 337 F 1033/16, 442 M 10036/16 and 442 M 21343/16 and one Copy of the accounting transactions relating to the defendant (incoming/outgoing payments with the respective posting date, intended use and payment ordering party/payee), as well as the plaintiff to be ordered to the defendant for the delayed and still incomplete provision of the data information in accordance with Art. 82 para. 1 DS GVO to pay an appropriate amount for pain and suffering at the discretion of the court, which should not be less than €1,800 e, plus 5 percentage points above the base interest rate since the time of the last oral hearing in the first instance. The plaintiff requests that the further counterclaim be dismissed of 06/25/2021 has sent Annexes K 32 and K 35, as well as to the extent that the plaintiff has sent the defendant Annexes K 43 - K 46 with a letter dated 07/12/2021 dated August 9th, 2021, the appendices K 47-K 63, the plaintiff has not joined. The defendant raises the objection of the statute of limitations to the plaintiff’s fee claim. Until she has been given the plaintiff’s reference files for inspection, she disputes the asserted ones Demands with ignorance. The defendant could not properly check the statutory RVG fees claimed without the underlying reference files. It was wrong that the defendant had not paid the plaintiff a single cent in any matter. It is not credible that the plaintiff should have worked for the defendant in a tense and emotional family law dispute between two quite wealthy spouses for a long time without demanding any advance payments. The defendant will provide transfer receipts or account statements, which show that she has indeed made advance payments. The invoicing is incomplete, since the plaintiff has not submitted a final invoice showing what third-party funds she has collected for the defendant from her ex-husband EF the defendant has the right to receive a proper final invoice from the plaintiff, which also shows the advances it has received. The obligation to provide data also includes the right to a copy of the reference files. It is disputed that the defendant was presented with all copies. The right to a copy under Art. 15 (3) DS-GVO refers to a copy of the personal data that the plaintiff has about the defendant, which is also a copy of the Hand files included. The right to data information from Art. 15 Para. 3 DS-GVO only became effective on May 25th, 2018 because Regulation EU 679/2016 only came into force on this day. It does not depend on the time of data storage, but on which data about the defendant the plaintiff has stored . The plaintiff owes the defendant the payment of damages for the delayed and still incomplete provision of the data information. The defendant places the amount at the discretion of the court. However, it should not be less than €100 per month, calculated from April 1st, 2020. A compensation for pain and suffering in the amount of €100 per month of delayed data access was not translated. Due to the willful rebellion against law and justice, the plaintiff forfeited compensation for pain and suffering in this amount. A trial settlement between the parties did not come about. The negotiations between the parties were still going on when the defendant came to the conclusion that it should move away from the idea of a settlement. To supplement the facts and the status of the dispute, reference is made to the pleadings and attachments submitted by the parties to the files and to the minutes of the oral hearings of August 26th, 2021 and November 18th, 2021. The files of the district court of Leipzig for the case numbers 337 F 3643/15, 337 F 1616/15, 337 F 1033/16 and 442 M 10036/16 were consulted and were the subject of oral negotiations.