LAG Hessen - 9 Sa 1431/19
| LAG Hessen - 9 Sa 1431/19 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | LAG Hessen (Germany) |
| Jurisdiction: | Germany |
| Relevant Law: | Article 15(1) GDPR |
| Decided: | 10.06.2021 |
| Published: | |
| Parties: | Transporting Company Employee |
| National Case Number/Name: | 9 Sa 1431/19 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:DE:LAGHE:2021:0610.9SA1431.19.00 |
| Appeal from: | Labour Court of Wiesbaden 6 Ca 396/19 |
| Appeal to: | Not appealed |
| Original Language(s): | German |
| Original Source: | Bürgerservice Hessenrecht (in German) |
| Initial Contributor: | Jannik |
The Regional Labour Court of Hesse decided that an employer who cannot present facts for overriding confidentiality interests has to provide information pursuant to Article 15 GDPR to an employee even if such information can be used in defence against criminal proceedings initiated by the employer.
English Summary
Facts
The defendant, a transporting company located in Germany, employed the plaintiff for the delivery and assembly of goods. The company filed criminal charges against the employee for aggravated fraud based on falsely overcharged travel expenses and terminated the employment contract.
The plaintiff requested information pursuant to Article 15 GDPR from the defendant, arguing that the information is required for a proper defence within the criminal procedure. Accordingly, the company did not name any interest in secrecy or conflicting interests worthy of protection.
The defendant, however, refused to provide the information requested. They saw the plaintiffs request precluded by overriding secrecy interests, claiming that the access to confidential data prior to the conclusion of the proceedings resulted in an abuse of rights.
In a first instance, the Labour Court of Wiesbaden decided that the defendant was entitled to receive the information requested because the defendant did not present any facts on overriding or confidentiality interests. The defendant filed an appeal.
Holding
The Regional Labour Court of Hesse hold that an overriding interest of the defendant in effective legal protection cannot be recognized against the plaintiff's interests in protection provided by the GDPR. Although the purpose of the right to information is to enable the control of lawfulness of the processing of personal data, the pursuit of further purposes and a different motives, such as the exercise of rights in a criminal proceeding, does not justify a refusal of that right.
At the same time, the plaintiff is not required to limit his request for information. The individual pieces of information listed in the application correspond to the standardized requirements of Article 15(1) GDPR and represent the right to information embodied therein. This minimum of information must be provided to the plaintiff.
Finally, the court upheld the previous courts view to not acknowledge the interests in secrecy of the defendant as they failed to sufficiently demonstrated concrete concerns. The defendant cannot completely deny the plaintiff's right to information with a mere abstract reference to runing criminal proceedings.
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 have not activated Javascript in your browser. Please activate Javascript to use the application.
