AG Düsseldorf - 51 C 206/23
From GDPRhub
| AG Düsseldorf - 51 C 206/23 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | AG Düsseldorf (Germany) |
| Jurisdiction: | Germany |
| Relevant Law: | Article 12 GDPR Article 12(6) GDPR Article 15(1) GDPR Article 15(2) GDPR Article 15(3) GDPR Article 82(1) GDPR |
| Decided: | 17.08.2023 |
| Published: | 24.08.2023 |
| Parties: | |
| National Case Number/Name: | 51 C 206/23 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ecli:DE:AGD:2023:0824.51C206.23.00 |
| Appeal from: | |
| Appeal to: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | German |
| Original Source: | Justiz (in German) |
| Initial Contributor: | Sainey Belle |
The Local Court of Düsseldorf ordered the controller to pay €500 in damages to a data subject for failing to respond to a subject access request due to the subject not providing identification
English Summary
Facts
The controller was an online shop which sold PC software, computer accessories, printer cartridges, household and lifestyle items. On 29.06.2022, the data subject brought €76.93 worth of items but did not make payment. The controller sought to engage a debt collection agency to enforce the payment.
After which, the data subject then raised a rights request pursuant to Article 15 GDPR. The request was made on either 23.12.2022 or 02.06.2023. Neither party could agree on the date. The controller did not fulfil the request on the basis that the data subject did not prove their identity pursuant to Recital 64 GDPR, and in addition, believes the counterclaim was abusive on part of the data subject.
Holding
Per the Court, the controller has no legitimate reason to deny the rights request. Whether the request was made on 23.12.2022 or 02.06.2023 does not matter as the deadline per Article 12 GDPR has surpassed in either case.
The controller cannot rely on the fact that the data subject did not provide them with personal documents to verify their identity as stated in Article 12(6) GDPR. This claim only applies if a “justified doubt” exists and in this case, the court held that it did not.
In ascertaining the amount of damages due, the court held that the amount of damages does not depend on how economically potent the opponent is but rather to act as a deterrent. In addition, the controller is no longer processing the data, including the fact they have not further shared the data to other third parties since the last potential date at which the request was raised.
The controller was ordered to pay the data subject to €500 and to adhere to the request.
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.
1 Facts: 2The plaintiff maintains, among other things, an online shop for PC software, computer accessories, printer cartridges, household and lifestyle items. In this case, the defendant bought 202 goods worth €76.93 on June 29th. 3He received the goods but did not pay for them - the plaintiff objected to the debit from his account. 4The plaintiff called in a debt collection company to enforce the claim without success. 5On December 19, 2022, the plaintiff applied for a reminder against the defendant with regard to the main claim as well as pre-trial costs in the form of reminder, information, bank chargeback and collection costs totaling €90.24. 6The defendant lodged a timely objection to the reminder notice served in accordance with the application. 7In the present proceedings, the plaintiff continues to pursue her previously asserted claim. She believes she is entitled to this. 8The plaintiff applies 9 order the defendant to pay the plaintiff €76.93 plus interest amounting to five percentage points above the base interest rate since July 29, 2022, as well as pre-trial costs totaling €90.24. 10The defendant applies 11to weigh the lawsuit 12The defendant objects to the main claim that he is entitled to higher claims against the plaintiff, which he is pursuing with the counterclaim. 13With regard to the additional claim, he raises objections on the basis and amount. 14The defendant has requested the plaintiff to provide comprehensive information about the data stored about him in accordance with Article 15 Paragraph 1 and 2 GDPR and also to provide a copy of all data in accordance with Article 15 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 GDPR. 15 It is disputed between the parties whether he did this by email on December 23rd, 2022 or only on June 2nd, 2023. 16The plaintiff did not provide any information, so the defendant filed a counterclaim in response to the claims mentioned. 17The defendant files a counterclaim 18a. order the plaintiff to hand over to him a copy of all the data that she processes about him; 19b. order the plaintiff to provide him with information about which other companies she has transmitted his data to; 20c. to order the plaintiff to pay him monetary compensation, the amount of which is at the discretion of the court, but should not be less than 1,000.00 euros, as well as default interest of five percentage points above the base interest rate since the case was pending. 21The plaintiff applies 22 to dismiss the complaint. 23It makes the provision of information dependent on the defendant proving his identity. 24On the other hand, she is of the opinion that his behavior was abusive. 25For further details, reference is made to the content of the file and the written submissions exchanged between the parties. 26 Reasons for the decision: 271. The lawsuit is admissible and, to the extent stated, also well-founded. 28a. The plaintiff is entitled to payment of an amount of €76.93 from the defendant in accordance with Section 433 Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB). 29The defendant purchased a USB power bank and an ink cartridge for a printer plus shipping costs from the plaintiff in her online shop on June 29, 2023 for a total price of €76.93 30He did not pay the purchase price. The defendant did not raise any substantiated objections regarding the reason or amount regarding the origin of the claim. 31b. The interest claim arises from the aspect of the delay, §§ 286 Paragraph 1, Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 BGB, the amount of interest follows from §§ 247 Paragraph 2, 288 Paragraph 1 BGB. 32c. The plaintiff is also entitled to payment of pre-litigation costs in the amount of €76.44 in accordance with Sections 280 Paragraph 2 and 286 Paragraph 1 BGB. It is consistent with the case law of the Federal Court of Justice that the perpetrator must reimburse the costs of legal proceedings that, from the injured party's point of view, were necessary and expedient to exercise his rights. The ex ante view of a reasonable, economically minded person is decisive. There are no excessive requirements. It depends on how the expected settlement of the damage event appears from the perspective of the injured party (BGH, VII ZR 320/21 with further references). Based on this, the plaintiff's involvement of a debt collection service was necessary and expedient. In this respect, the plaintiff could assume that, assuming that her previous warning had been received by the defendant (which the defendant denies) but had been unsuccessful, the involvement of a debt collection service expressed the necessary seriousness of her claim enforcement despite the small amount and thus a legal action procedure could possibly be avoided. 33d. The plaintiff has no claim to the additional pre-trial costs claimed in the amount of €14.00. In this respect, it has not sufficiently explained and proven that these were incurred (reminder costs and chargeback costs) or were necessary (information costs). 342. The counterclaim is admissible and also justified to the extent stated 35a. The defendant has a claim against the defendant for a copy of all data that it processes about him and for information about which other companies the defendant has transmitted his data to in accordance with Article 15 Paragraphs 1 and 3 GDPR. 36With the reply, the plaintiff declared that she would fulfill the defendant's corresponding demands. However, she did not do this. There are no legitimate objections to not fulfilling the contract. It is unclear whether the defendant asked the plaintiff for information on December 23, 2022 or only on June 2, 2023. In any case, the deadline under Article 12 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 and the GDPR has now expired. 37The plaintiff also cannot demand that the defendant limit himself beforehand with an identity document. Such a claim exists if it is not certain that the claimant is not the person he claims to be, Article 12 Paragraph 6 GDPR. However, there are no such reasonable doubts here. 38b. Furthermore, the defendant has a claim against the plaintiff for non-material damages in the amount of €500.00 in accordance with Article 82 (1) GDPR 39If the plaintiff does not fulfill the claims to which the defendant is entitled in accordance with Art. 15 GDPR, this leads to a claim for damages. 40The fact that the defendant systematically pursues violations of the GDPR in relation to his person must be taken into account when determining the amount of damages, but this does not mean that a claim for unlawful conduct is excluded. 41Immaterial damages serve as satisfaction, but are not intended to represent a source of income. Furthermore, the amount does not depend on how economically powerful the claimant is. The non-material damages claim of the injured party has no punitive function, so that a “deterrent” effect is not important. 42An increase is also not possible from the point of view that the plaintiff refuses - for no legal reason - to provide the information and to hand over the requested data. This would only be the case if the plaintiff continued to work with the data, in particular if it had been passed on to other third parties since June 2, 2023 at the latest, thereby deepening the defendant's damage alone. But this is not apparent. 43c. The interest claim under lit. b. arises from Section 291 of the German Civil Code (BGB), the counterclaim was served on the plaintiff on June 15, 2023. The amount of interest follows from Sections 247 Paragraph 2 and 288 Paragraph 1 BGB. 44The amount in dispute is set at: €1,476.93 (claim: €76.93, counterclaim: applications lit.a. and b.: €200.00 each, application lit. c.: €1,000.00) 45Information on legal remedies: 46An appeal against this judgment is permissible for anyone whose rights are disadvantaged by this judgment, 471. if the value of the subject matter of the complaint exceeds EUR 600.00 or 482. if the appeal in the judgment has been permitted by the district court. 49The appeal must be received at the Düsseldorf Regional Court, Werdener Straße 1, 40227 Düsseldorf, within an emergency period of one month after delivery of this judgment. The notice of appeal must contain the name of the judgment against which the appeal is made and a statement that this judgment is being appealed. 50The appeal must be substantiated within two months of delivery of this judgment to the Düsseldorf Regional Court, unless already stated in the notice of appeal. 51The parties must be represented by a lawyer before the Düsseldorf Regional Court; in particular, the notice of appeal and the statement of reasons for the appeal must be signed by a lawyer. 52A copy or certified copy of the contested judgment should be submitted with the notice of appeal. 53U.
