VG Schwerin - 1 A 1343/19 SN
| 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
The plaintiff (responsible person) has obtained an expert opinion that, after a decision by the defendant (data protection authority) it is now to be returned to the owner of the property in question (joined party to 1). The lawsuit is directed against the defendant's decision.
Dispute
It is apparent from paragraph 24 to 34 of the judgment that, such statements that provide a subjective and / or objective assessment of an identified or identifiable person also have a personal reference. In particular, the distinction between the factual data and the personal data. Accordingly, the personal reference can result from a content, purpose or element. The content element is realized when there is a direct personal reference when statements are made about a person, and the indirect personal reference is to be assumed when relational statements are made; for example when making a statement about the value of a property. A purpose element is given if the information makes it possible to assess, treat or influence a person. This is particularly assumed when various pieces of information are linked in order, for example, to recognize patterns and to create corresponding analyzes based on which the interaction with a person is taking place. The result element is achieved if - regardless of a content or purpose element - there is the possibility that the information can affect the rights and interests of a specific person, for example in the case of information about the economic use and exploitation of real estate. The plaintiff's view that there is a factual date even if the information relates to an object and a link to a natural person can only be established through intermediate steps contradicts the principles set out and in particular the case law of the European Court of Justice and must therefore be rejected. Conversely, inferring from this that any information that relates to a person or enables identification is fundamentally protected under data protection law. Applying the criteria mentioned, it is justified to regard the expert opinion at issue here as a personal data. It is not a factual date, as the plaintiff thinks. Indirect personal information is available by recording the individual and unique state of the property of the joined party to 1 in detail and linking it to his address. The appraisal was created specifically for the purpose of recording the assets and property of the party summoned to 1., by means of which the appraisal of the property-related condition at a certain point in time was recorded in order to preserve evidence. The object is currently being examined with regard to later disputes with the authorized person, whereby the content element is also realized at the same time. In this way, all of the determining elements according to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice are fulfilled and there is clearly a personal data.
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.
