LG Wiesbaden - 3 S 50/21
| LG Wiesbaden - 3 S 50/21 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | LG Wiesbaden (Germany) |
| Jurisdiction: | Germany |
| Relevant Law: | Article 2(2) GDPR Article 4(8) GDPR Article 15 GDPR Article 28 GDPR |
| Decided: | 30.09.2021 |
| Published: | |
| Parties: | |
| National Case Number/Name: | 3 S 50/21 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EN:LGWIESB:2021:0930.3S50.21.00 |
| Appeal from: | AG Wiesbaden 93 C 2338/20 |
| Appeal to: | Not appealed |
| Original Language(s): | German |
| Original Source: | Bürgerservice Hessenrecht (in German) |
| Initial Contributor: | Giel Ritzen |
The Regional Court of Wiesbaden held that data processing under private law no longer exists if a landlord passes on data to a company for the purpose of creating a utility bill. The company then acts as a processor in accordance with Article 4 number 8, Article 28 GDPR.
English Summary
Facts
This dispute arose during another an eviction dispute between data subject and their landlord (who is the controller). After controller commissioned A GmbH to prepare a cost statement, the company concluded that data subject had to pay an additional € 720,80. During the original dispute, the data subject filed an access request pursuant to Article 15 GDPR. The controller rejected this request because they were merely a private landlord who did not store any data. The data subject, however, claimed the landlord is a controller because their personal data were processed by company A to prepare the cost statement, and the landlord communicated with the data subject via WhatsApp and had therefore stored their phone number.
The District Court of Wiesbaden acknowledged the data subject’s claim in Bürgerservice Hessenrecht - 93 C 2338/20 | AG Wiesbaden | Partial verdict | Data information claim against landlord. It held that the data subject’s personal data was clearly processed, and that none of the exceptions of Article 2(2) GDPR applied. Hence, it concluded the landlord violated Article 15 GDPR.
The landlord filed appeal against this decision.
Holding
The Regional Court of Wiesbaden rejected the appeal.
It held that the landlord is not merely acting privately because they commissioned company A GmbH to prepare a cost statement. At that moment, the personal data is further processed by this company for the landlord. Hence, that company acts as a processor in accordance with Article 4(8) and Article 28 GDPR, and the landlord must, as controller, comply with the access request pursuant to Article 15.
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 enabled in your browser. Please enable Javascript to use the application.
