AG Frankfurt am Main - 31 C 2043/22 (78)
| AG Frankfurt (Oder) - 31 C 2043/22 (78) | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | AG Frankfurt (Oder) (Germany) |
| Jurisdiction: | Germany |
| Relevant Law: | Article 4 GDPR Article 15(3) GDPR Article 15(4) GDPR |
| Decided: | 14.03.2023 |
| Published: | |
| Parties: | |
| National Case Number/Name: | 31 C 2043/22 (78) |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:DE:AGFFM:2023:0314.31C2043.22.78.00 |
| Appeal from: | |
| Appeal to: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | German |
| Original Source: | Citizen Service Hessenrecht (in German) |
| Initial Contributor: | n/a |
update
English Summary
Facts
After failing a language examination, a data subject requested the test operator (controller) to provide her a copy of her examination paper under Article 15(3) GDPR. The controller offered the data subject to consult her paper at its office but refused to provide a copy. It argued that the majority of the paper did not contain personal data under the meaning of Article 4 GDPR and that it had an interest in secrecy under Article 15(4) GDPR. Indeed, he explained that the confidentiality of the tests was important to ensure the integrity and reliability of the results.
Holding
First, the Court did not follow the argument stating that the content of the paper was not personal data. It considered that the answers of the data subjects and the comments of the examiner constitute personal data under Article 4 GDPR. The test questions however were not personal data.
Second, the Court weighed up the right of the data subject and interest of the controller in secrecy under Article 15(4) GDPR. It considered that the test questions constituted trade secrets within the meaning of national provisions and that the development of these language test represented a complex procedure involving considerable economic effort. These tests are used in naturalization procedure and due to a lack of secrecy, there could be a risk that the examination would no longer be considered sufficient to determine language skills in naturalization procedures. As a result, the entrepreneurial freedom of the controller could be threatened.
The Court therefore considered that the controller could refuse to provide a copy under Article 15(4) GDPR. It added that the right to access was not entirely denied since the data subject could consult her paper at the controller’s office.
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.
