AG Lörrach - 3 C 29/23
From GDPRhub
| AG Lörrach - 3 C 29/23 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | AG Lörrach (Germany) |
| Jurisdiction: | Germany |
| Relevant Law: | Article 15(1) GDPR |
| Decided: | 20.12.2024 |
| Published: | |
| Parties: | |
| National Case Number/Name: | 3 C 29/23 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EN:AGLOERR:2024:1220.3C29.23.00 |
| Appeal from: | |
| Appeal to: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | German |
| Original Source: | Baden-Württemberg State law BW (in German) |
| Initial Contributor: | Shravan |
A court ruled that an Article 15(1) GDPR request to pursue not GDPR-related legal claims was not abusive, as the right to transparency and data access was prioritized.
English Summary
Facts
The data subject, a holder of an insurance policy of an insurance company (the controller), sued after the controller adjusted the premium amounts of their policy. The data subject claimed the adjustments were not fully communicated in accordance with the German Insurance Contract Act (Versicherungsvertragsgesetz - VVG), which mandates that reasons for premium changes be disclosed, including whether they are temporary or permanent.
The contract between the data subject and the controller had been in place for several years, with premium adjustments occurring over time. The data subject argued that the controller did not provide adequate information about these adjustments. They also sought access to personal data related to their insurance policy under Article 15 GDPR, including details of premium adjustments, tariff changes, and policy terminations.
The controller denied the request, asserting that the necessary information had already been provided.
Holding
The court held that the data subject's claim for information under Article 15(1) GDPR was justified. The personal data in question, relating to the data subject’s insurance relationship, were considered personal data as per Article 4(1) GDPR. The controller was required to provide information on the processing of these personal data, which included the time and amount of premium adjustments, tariff changes, and tariff terminations.
The court rejected the controller’s argument that the data subject's request was abusive. It emphasized that the GDPR grants a very strong right to information, aimed at ensuring transparency and data sovereignty. The data subject’s request was not deemed excessive, as he sought data related to his own contractual relationship and indicated that he no longer had access to the information.
The court affirmed that the controller could not deny the request based on the data subject's potential economic interests, as the right to information is about transparency, not just tracking data protection violations. Therefore, the controller was obligated to provide the requested information in line with Article 15 GDPR.
Comment
This decision contradicts the judgement by the OLG Düsseldorf - 6 U 114/23, maybe (hopefully) showing that the OLG Düsseldorf's decision is not setting a new standard.
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.
Orientation sentence
A right to information according to Art. 15 GDPR cannot be rejected simply because it is intended to pursue financial claims.
Tenor
1. The defendant is ordered to provide the plaintiff with a copy of the personal data on the premium history of the insurance contract with the insurance number XXX - with the exception of the compulsory long-term care insurance tariff - in the years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, from which the following information can be obtained:
- Time and amount of the old and new amount for each contribution adjustment that has taken place in accordance with 203 para. 2 VVG;
- Time of tariff change, stating the origin and destination tariff;
- Time of tariff terminations.
2. For the rest, the complaint is dismissed.
3. The plaintiff has to bear the costs of the legal dispute.
4. The judgment is provisionally enforceable. The plaintiff may avert the enforcement of the defendant by providing security in the amount of 110% of the amount enforceable on the basis of the judgment, unless the defendant provides security in the amount of 110% of the amount to be enforced before enforcement.
Resolution
The amount in dispute is set at €4,921.25.
Facts
Margin number1
The parties are arguing about the effectiveness of premium adjustments in private health insurance.
Margin number 2
The plaintiff's side had private health insurance with the defendant since 01.02.1990. The monthly contribution to be paid to the defendant has been adjusted in recent years, among other things in tariff XXX as of 01.01.2021 in the amount of €27.99 (AS 33 and 68-76)
Number 3
The contribution adjustment as of 01.01.2021 contains the following justification:
Margin number 4
"Dear Mr. XXX,
Margin number 5
with the XXX you can rely on your insurance in the event of illness. Through the contractually guaranteed benefits, you benefit in the long term from high-quality health care and medical progress.
Margin number 6
In order for us to be able to fulfill this benefit promise at any time, we are legally obliged to compare the actual insurance benefits and death probabilities with the invoiced insurance benefits and death probabilities underlying the previous premium calculation at least once a year.
Margin number 7
In the event of a non-only temporary deviation that exceeds a threshold of 5% or 10%, we are legally obliged to review all invoice bases for the premium calculation and, if necessary, adjust it. The thresholds applicable to the individual tariffs can be found in the corresponding tariff conditions (Part II of the General Insurance Conditions) or the respective tariff (Part III of the General Insurance Conditions).
Border number 8
The review has shown that an adjustment of the contributions as of 01.01.2021 is necessary because the above-mentioned thresholds for insurance benefits have been exceeded. The resulting changes in contributions are due to the consideration of changed expenditure on medical care, a renewed increase in life expectancy and persistently low interest rates.
Border number 9
The plaintiff submits that the premium adjustment is formally ineffective. It is necessary to point out the change above the applicable threshold, which is not only temporary. The note "not only temporary" is missing.
Margin number 10
The right to information results from Art. 15 GDPR, § 3 para. 2 VVG, § 810 BGB or § 242 BGB. The claims are also not time-barred because the contractual relationship is still ongoing. Art. 15 GDPR is linked to the personal data processing, which also still ongoes. In addition, the claim for reimbursement according to § 812 para. 1 p. 1 Alt. 1 BGB, which is newly arised every month with each payment. The plaintiff had lost the insurance documents and they could no longer be found. The auxiliary application would at least be in accordance with Art. 15 GDPR.
Margin number11
The plaintiff requests,
Border number 12
1) It is established that the following re-exterminations of the premiums in the existing health/long-term care insurance with the insurance number XXX are ineffective:
a) the increase in the contribution in tariff XXX as of 01.01.2021 in the amount of € 27.99 and the total contribution is to be reduced by a total of €27.99, taking into account the reductions that have been made.
Margin number13
2) The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff €699.75 plus interest thereon in the amount of five percentage points above the respective base interest rate from the date of legal proceedings.
Border number14
3) It is established that the defendant is obliged to the plaintiff to surrender the uses that it has taken from the premium portion that the plaintiff has paid on the contribution increases listed under 1) until it is pending.
Margin number 15
4) The defendant is ordered to provide the plaintiff with information on all premium adjustments that the defendant has made in the contract concluded between the parties in the years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, to the insurance number XXX and to provide appropriate documents containing at least the following information:
a) the amount of the contribution adjustments for the years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, with designation of the respective tariffs in the insurance relationship of the plaintiff's side,
(b) the information transmitted to the applicant for this purpose in the form of insurance certificates and supplements to the insurance certificate for the years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018.
Border number16
Alternatively with regard to No. 4:
The defendant is ordered to provide the plaintiff with a copy of the personal data on the premium history of the insurance contract with the insurance number XXX - with the exception of the compulsory long-term care insurance tariff - in the years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, from which the following information can be obtained:
- Time and amount of the old and new amount for each contribution adjustment that has taken place in accordance with 203 para. 2 VVG;
- Time of tariff change, stating the origin and destination tariff;
- Time of tariff terminations.
Margin number 17
The defendant requests,
Edge number 18
dismiss the lawsuit.
Border number 19
The defendant argues that the claims are time-barred up to and including 2019. The letters of communication are formally effective because they contain the necessary information. Apart from that, the defendant has continuously indicated since 2013 in the communication letters via a link to the homepage and the additional information/FAQs with the detailed explanations to the contribution adjustment, which is eno enous. Formal errors are at least cured with the complaint. The right to information would not exist.
Margin number20
The plaintiff originally filed with regard to motions Nos. 1 and 2:
Margin number 21
1) It is established that the following re-exterminations of the premiums in the existing health/long-term care insurance with the insurance number XXX are ineffective:
a) the increase in the contribution in tariff XXX as of 01.01.2021 in the amount of €27.99
b) the increase in the contribution in tariff XXX as of 01.12.2021 in the amount of €0.82
and the plaintiff is not obliged to pay the respective difference, and the total contribution is to be reduced by a total of €28.81, taking into account the reductions made.
Margin number22
2) The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff €711.23 plus interest thereon in the amount of five percentage points above the respective basic interest rate from the time of the case of the case.
Margin number 23
Originally, the auxiliary application was also not made. This was only provided with a pleading of 27.02.2024.
Edge number 24
The lawsuit filed on 09.01.2023 was served on 15.02.2023.
Margin number 25
Oral proceedings took place on 05.03.2024. Reference is made to the protocol.
Reasons for decision
Edge number 26
A) The admissible motions Nos. 1 to 3 are unfounded because the premium adjustment that has been made is not formally ineffective.
Margin number 27
I) The re-setting of the contributions by the defendant only becomes effective if the requirements of § 203 para. 5 VVG are observed (BGHZ 220, 297, Rn. 66; BeckOK VVG/Gramse, 22. Ed. 1.2.2024, VVG § 203 Rn. 54). For this, the relevant reasons for the contribution adjustment must be communicated. The notification of the relevant reasons for the re-setting of the premium according to § 203 para. 5 VVG requires the indication of the invoice basis, the change of which not only temporary the re-determination according to § 203 para. 2 p. 1 VVG has caused. On the other hand, the insurer does not have to communicate the amount to which this invoice basis has changed (BGH, NJW 2021, 378 Rn. 26, beck-online). Possible reasons are changed insurance benefits or a changed probability of death (§ 203 para. 2 p. 3 VVG). In addition, the policyholder must be explained with due clarity in the notice that a change in the basis of account above the applicable threshold value has triggered the concrete increase in premiums (BGH Urt. v. August 31, 2022 - IV ZR 252/20, BeckRS 2022, 23867, Rn. 13; BGH, NJW-RR 2022, 34 Rn. 26).
Margin number28
II) The notification letter contains exactly these specifications and this is not disputed between the parties. The plaintiff merely asserts that the passage is "not only temporarily" missing.
Margin number 29
III) That the deviation is "not only temporary" need not be mentioned. Because this is a material requirement of § 203 Abs. 2 p. 1 VVG, but is subject to the formal requirements of § 203 Abs. 5 VVG not mentioned (cf. judgment of the OLG Karlsruhe of 17.01.2023, 12 U 304/21, jurisRn. 89). Notwithstanding this, the communication also states that the deviation is not only temporary.
Border number 30
B) The admissible main request No. 4 is unfounded.
Border number31
I) The plaintiff has no claimed claim for information from § 242 BGB.
Border number32
1) According to § 242 BGB, the debtor is exceptionally obliged to provide information in the context of a legal relationship if the entitled person is in the unknown in a culpable manner about the existence and scope of his right and the obliged party can easily provide the information necessary to eliminate the uncertainty. The right to information must be granted taking into account the respective circumstances of the individual case and in compliance with the principle of proportionality. Such a claim is also generally considered in private health insurance. Within contractual relationships - as in this case - the right to information may also have the function of providing the entitled party with information about the existence of the claim in principle. There must then be sufficient evidence for the existence of a main claim, which is to be asserted with the help of the information. (BGH, judgment of 27. September 2023 - IV ZR 177/22 -, juris Rn. 30-33) In this respect, in principle ineffective premium increases could come into consideration, which still have an effect and claims therefrom are not yet time-barred (BGH, judgment of 27. September 2023 - IV ZR 177/22 -, juris Rn. 34).
Margin number 33
2) Furthermore, a claim from § 242 BGB presupposes that the documents are no longer available at the plaintiff (BGH, judgment of 27. September 2023 - IV ZR 177/22 -, juris Rn. 38) and the plaintiff is in an excusable manner about the existence and scope of his right in uncertainty, for which the loss of the documents alone is not sufficient (BGH, judgment of 27. September 2023 - IV ZR 177/22 -, juris 40). Admittedly, the plaintiff argued that he had lost the documents and that they could no longer be found. However, no reasons for the loss were given. Only the explanation of the reasons for the loss by the policyholder makes it possible to assess whether the policyholder is exceptionally entitled to information in accordance with § 242 BGB, taking into account the respective circumstances of the individual case and while maintaining the principle of proportionality (BGH, judgment of 27. September 2023 - IV ZR 177/22 -, juris 40). The plaintiff himself cited this case law and therefore did not have to be pointed out that the presentation was still inclusive.
Border number 34
II) A claim also does not exist from § 3 para. 3 VVG. The information on all contribution adjustments made is requested. The claim from § 3 Abs. However, 3 VVG only includes the insurance certificate including supplements that reflect the currently valid contract content, but not already outdated supplements. (BGH, judgment of 27. September 2023 - IV ZR 177/22 -, juris 42) Thus, the plaintiff cannot pursue his goal with this claim.
Border number35
III) The claim cannot be based on § 810 BGB either, since it only allows permission to inspect a document in the possession of another person. (BGH, judgment of 27. September 2023 - IV ZR 177/22 -, juris Rn. 44) However, the plaintiff requests information.
Margin number 36
IV) Finally, the claim cannot be derived from Art. 15 para. 1 GDPR. A claim to a copy of the entire justification letter including attachments - to which the plaintiff's application is aimed - does not follow from Art. 15 para. Neither the cover letters themselves nor the attached attachments (suits, supplements to the insurance certificate) are in their entirety personal data of the policyholder. (BGH, judgment of 27. September 2023 - IV ZR 177/22 -, juris Rn. 46) It can already be seen from the documents submitted in this case that the defendant's letter also contains general statements that are not personal.
Border number37
C) Since the main application is unfounded, the auxiliary application must be examined. This is permissible and justified.
Margin number38
I) The ancillary application was made dependent on an intra-proctedural condition, which is admissible. The extension of the claim is permissible according to § 267 ZPO, because the defendant party has impartially involved.
Border number39
II) The plaintiff has, as requested in accordance with Art. 15 para. 1 GDPR a right to information about the processing of his personal data.
Margin number 40
1) Personal data are in accordance with Art. 4 No. 1 GDPR any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person. The concept of information includes information of any kind, whether objective or subjective. The personal reference of the data can be represented as a content element, purpose element or result element. (Ehmann/Selmayr/Klabunde/Horváth, 3. Rel. 2024, GDPR Art. 4 Rn. 10) Data about contractual relationships can also be personal data. (BeckOK DatenschutzR/Schild, 49. Ed. 1.8.2024, GDPR Art. 4 Rn. 3)
Margin number 41
Processing is in accordance with Art. 4 No. 2 GDPR, any operation or any set of operations carried out with or without the aid of automated procedures relating to personal data such as the collection, recording, organization, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or other form of provision, alignment or combination, restriction, erasure or destruction.
Randnummer42
In the present case, the plaintiff requests information on the following specific data for the period 2013 to 2018 from the insurance relationship with the defendant party:
Border number43
- Time and amount of the old and new amount for each contribution adjustment that has taken place in accordance with 203 para. 2 VVG;
- Time of tariff change, stating the origin and destination tariff;
- Time of tariff terminations.
Margin number 44
Such data are data from the insurance relationship of the plaintiff and the defendant. Data from the insurance relationship, which concern the plaintiff, are personal data (BGH, judgment of 27. September 2023 - IV ZR 177/22 -, juris Rn. 48). The amount of the contribution adjustment, the time of the tariff change and the time of tariff terminations relate to the contractual relationship between the parties and thus also refer to the plaintiff. These are also data that the defendant has processed. This data was at least collected and stored by the defendant. Contribution adjustments were generated by the defendant himself, which represents a change in the personal data.
Margin number 45
2) The other conditions for the claim are also met. According to Art. 2 and 3 GDPR, the scope of application of the GDPR is open. The plaintiff is the person concerned and requests information from himself. The defendant is the defendant as responsible for the data processing, because the defendant according to Art. 4 No. 7 GDPR on the purposes and means of processing (here for contract execution) of personal data. The request for information was made with the extension of the lawsuit.
Margin number46
3) As far as according to Art. 15 para. 1 GDPR information can be requested, can be used in accordance with Art. 15 para. 3 GDPR as requested a copy is required. This is a claim of the same content and art. 15 para. 3 GDPR only regulates the modality of the fulfillment of claims (ECJ, judgment of 4. May 2023 - C-487/21 -, juris Rn. 31).
Margin number 47
4) The defendant cannot refuse the information. The only possible reason for refusal here would be the abuse of rights (on the possible grounds for refusal: BeckOK DatenschutzR/Schmidt-Wudy, 49. Ed. 1.8.2024, GDPR Art. 15 Rn. 49). It is not clear why the plaintiff's request should be abusive. He has indicated that he no longer has the requested data and it can be understood that he would like to have the data on the course of the contract, which concern him personally, in his possession.
Margin number 48
Insofar as some courts have the ground of exclusion according to Art. 12 para. 5 S. 2 lit. b DSGVO, because the claim only pursues financial claims and not the data protection (OLG Hamm Beschl. v. 15.11.2021 - 20 U 269/21, BeckRS 2021, 40312; OLG Dresden final judgment v. 3/29/2022 - 4 U 1905/21, BeckRS 2022, 8743; OLG Karlsruhe Urt. v. 11/29/2022 - 12 U 305/21, BeckRS 2022, 34651), or the meaning and purpose of the GDPR was denied (OLG Munich Reference Decision v. 11/24/2021 - 14 U 6205/21, BeckRS 2021, 40311) the court does not follow this.
Margin number 49
It is quite true that Art. 12 para. 5 S. 2 lit. b DSGVO not only applicable to cases of frequent repetition, because this is only an example ("in particular"). The decisive factor is whether the request is excessive or abusive. However, there are no indications for this. The plaintiff only requests personal data once, which he no longer has according to his own information. Insofar as the plaintiff thus pursues his own purposes and does not intend to damage the defendant (BeckOK DatenschutzR/Quaas, 49. Ed. 1.8.2024, GDPR Art. 12 Rn. 44), the right to information cannot be denied only because the plaintiff may also pursue economic interests. The GDPR is intended to enable data sovereignty, which includes a very strong right to information. According to recital 63, the information should be able to be perceived "problem-free and at reasonable intervals". The interest in being "aware of processing" is sufficient. That is exactly what the plaintiff is concerned about when he indicates that he no longer owns the data himself. Insofar as the OLG case law cited above requires that "data protection" must be pursued with the right to information, this interpretation does not correspond to the meaning and purpose of the GDPR. The right to information does not only serve to be able to trace data protection violations, it is also about ensuring a comprehensive right to information in order to ensure transparency. For this reason, the person responsible (here the defendant) may not presume to decide whether the desired information is useful or effective for the person concerned (BeckOK DatenschutzR/Schmidt-Wudy, 49. Ed. 1.8.2024, GDPR Art. 15 Rn. 2). The plaintiff himself decides for what he needs the desired data and why he wants to own it. Therefore, in the interpretation of Art. 12 para. 5 S. 2 lit. b DSGVO cannot be based on the purposes pursued by the plaintiff, as long as he does not intend to damage the defendant, which is not apparent here.
Margin number 50
C) The decision on costs is based on § 92 para. 2 No. 1 ZPO.
Border number 51
Insofar as the action has been withdrawn, the plaintiff shall bear the costs according to § 269 para. 3 p. 2 ZPO. Insofar as the plaintiff is underlying, he shall also bear the costs. The plaintiff only won with his auxiliary motion. This only concerns his personal data. The main request for information was based on his economic interest. However, insofar as the plaintiff only prevailed with regard to the information about the personal data about the course of the insurance, this does not correspond to the economic interest from the main application. It is not apparent that the plaintiff's personal data have a high economic value. The plaintiff can thus only understand the tariff course from his contractual relationship. Insofar as no economic interests are pursued with the information, the time and cost expenditure is decisive (Herget in: Zöller, Civil Procedure Code, 35. Edition 2024, § 3 ZPO Rn. 16.28). The court estimates the value of the plaintiff's victory at €100, which constitutes two percent of the amount in dispute, which is why according to § 92 para. 2 No. 1 ZPO all costs are imposed on the plaintiff.
Margin number52
D) The ruling on the provisional enforceability is based on §§ 708 No. 11; 711 ZPO.
Border number53
E) The amount in dispute is set at € 4,921.25.
Margin number54
Motion No. 1: 42 x €28.81 = €1,210.02 (§ 9 ZPO)
Motion No. 2: €711.23
Action No. 3: only ancillary claim
Motion No. 4: 6 x €500 = €3,000
Border number55
The auxiliary motion is only a subset of the claim No. 4 and therefore has no independent value, although it was decided, which is actually to be taken into account in an increase in dispute value (§ 45 para. 1 p. 2 GKG).
