VG der Freien Hansestadt Bremen - 4 K 1338/21
| VG der Freien Hansestadt Bremen - 4 K 1338/21 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | VG der Freien Hansestadt Bremen (Germany) |
| Jurisdiction: | Germany |
| Relevant Law: | Article 4(2) GDPR Article 6(1)(f) GDPR Article 58(2)(f) GDPR |
| Decided: | 10.10.2022 |
| Published: | |
| Parties: | |
| National Case Number/Name: | 4 K 1338/21 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | |
| Appeal from: | |
| Appeal to: | |
| Original Language(s): | German |
| Original Source: | OpenJur (in German) |
| Initial Contributor: | Sara Horvat |
A data controller published on his webpage screenshots and videos of an advisory board meeting, referring to it as being justified in the public interest to inform about the work of board members.
English Summary
Facts
The data controller published on his webpage a Screenshot of a Zoom Video Call of an advisory board meeting, where among others also the data subject, a local politician, could be seen.
The data subject then filed in an complaint by the DPA. The DPA then issued an administrative act - an order to answer the questions.
In this order, the DPA state that with the publication of the screenshots and videos, the data controller violated the personality right of the data subject. Even if there would be justification upon Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, due to the fact that the data subject is a public figure and it would be in the public interest, to know what he is doing, the public interest to information would not prevail the data subjects interest to not be defamed. Information about the work done is available in the protocol of the meeting, which is available to the public. The general public could get a better picture of the work from the protocol, than from a screenshot, which is without any content, except the visual appearance of the data subject. Therefore there also was no need to process the data in a such way. The main purpose of the publication of the screenshot was defamation of the data subject and not to inform the general public about his work.
In the administrative order there was an order to erase all data and a prohibition of recording videos or screenshots of the advisory board meetings upon a penalty. The data processor than filed in a lawsuit at the Administrative Court in Bremen against this order.
Holding
In its decision, the court held, that the administrative act from the DPA was rightful and dismissed the case.
The publication of the screenshots and videos on a private webpage, which is mostly used by the data controller to express his views and not to inform the general public about current happenings, was a processing of personal data in the sense of Article 4(2) GDPR. Therefore the data controller would need a lawful ground in the sense of Article 6(1) GDPR. Due to the fact that the purpose of the processing was not in the interest of the general public, where the interest of the public would prevail over the interest of the data subject, but the defamation of the data subject, the legal ground of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR could not be considered.
Also, there was also no need for the publication of the videos and screenshots. There were other (official) means to inform the public. The general public could watch the meeting live via webstream, there were protocols published afterward. The erasure of the videos was justified as an act of the DPA under Article 58(2)(f) GDPR.
The court also confirmed the order of the DPA to refrain from such publications upon penalty.
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.
