BGH - IV ZR 204/23

BGH - IV ZR 204/23

Court:	BGH (Germany)
Jurisdiction:	Germany
Relevant Law:	Article 15 GDPR
Decided:	19.03.2025
Published:	01.04.2025
Parties:
National Case Number/Name:	IV ZR 204/23
European Case Law Identifier:
Appeal from:	OLG Koblenz (Germany) 10 U 1556/22
Appeal to:	Not appealed
Original Language(s):	German
Original Source:	juris (in German)
Initial Contributor:	tjk

The court held that a data subject cannot request copies of all insurance premium adjustments under Article 15 GDPR as they do not only contain personal data.

English Summary

Facts

The parties are disputing the validity of insurance premium increases in a private health insurance policy. The data subject holds a health insurance policy with the controller, who made premium adjustments.

To the extent still relevant for the appeal, the data subject requested information regarding all premium adjustments made by the controller to the insurance contract between 2014 and 2019.

The Regional Court dismissed the action. The Higher Regional Court, dismissing the data subject's further appeal, ordered the controller to provide access by partial judgment.

The appeal court held that the access request is justified both with regard to the requested information and the related documents in the form of insurance policies and corresponding supplements; the basis for the claim is Article 15(1) GDPR in conjunction with Article 15(3) GDPR.

With the appeal the controller continues to pursue its motion to dismiss the action.

Holding

The court held, that a right to copies of the information submitted for the purpose of premium adjustment in the form of insurance policies and supplements to the insurance policy, does not follow from Article 15(1) and (3) GDPR.

The court confirmed it's conclusion of BGH - IV ZR 177/22, that the supplements to the insurance policy, as a whole, do not constitute personal data of the policyholder.

The court had previously held, that while letters from the data subject to the controller are to be classified as personal data in their entirety, since the personal information already consists of the fact that the data subject has made a statement in accordance with the letter, conversely - as is relevant here - letters from the controller to the data subject are personal data only insofar as they contain information about the data subject.

Accordingly, only the personal data of an insurance policy is not categorically excluded from the scope of application of Article 15(1) GDPR. However, as the data subject did not limit his asserted claim and his application in this respect he cannot base his claim for access on Article 15 GDPR.

Thus, the court partly annulled the judgement in the first instance.

Comment

The BGH appears to read the CJEU's interpretation in Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde, that Article 15(3) GDPR entails the right to obtain entire documents which contain, inter alia, personal data, if the provision of such a copy is essential to enable the data subject to exercise effectively his rights as an exemption to Article 15(1), (3) GDPR that requires demonstration by the data subject, why it is essential for them to get information that's not personal data.

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.

Federal Court of Justice (BGH) 4th Civil Senate, Judgment of
March 19, 2025, Case No. IV ZR 204/23

The parties are disputing the validity of premium increases in a private health insurance policy. The plaintiff holds a health insurance policy with the defendant, who made premium adjustments.

To the extent still relevant for the appeal, the plaintiff has requested information in her action regarding all premium adjustments made by the defendant to the insurance contract between 2014 and 2019; in this regard, she has requested that the defendant be ordered to provide appropriate documentation containing the amount of the premium adjustments, including the respective tariffs, and the information provided to the plaintiff for this purpose in the form of insurance policies and supplements to the insurance policy. In addition, she requested a declaration that the premium redeterminations, which were to be specified in more detail after the information was provided, were invalid, that she was not obligated to pay the respective difference, and that the total monthly amount due be reduced to an amount yet to be determined. She also requested payment of an amount yet to be determined after the information was provided, plus interest, and a declaration that the defendant was obligated to return any profits drawn and to pay interest on them.

The Regional Court dismissed the action. The Higher Regional Court, dismissing the plaintiff's further appeal, ordered the defendant to provide information by partial judgment.

With the appeal on points of law, the defendant continues to pursue its motion to dismiss the action.

The appeal is successful. It leads to the annulment of the appeal judgment to the extent that the defendant was convicted, and to the remand of the case to the appeal court to that extent.
I. The appeal court is of the opinion that the staged action is admissible. The requested information does not (solely) serve to examine whether the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of premiums on the merits, but also to quantify further claims. The request is justified both with regard to the requested information and the related documents in the form of insurance policies and corresponding supplements; the basis for the claim is Article 15 (1) in conjunction with Article 15 (3) sentence 1 GDPR. A statute of limitations for all conceivable main claims cannot be established.
II. This largely does not stand up to legal scrutiny.
1. In conclusion, however, the appeal court correctly assumes that the action for information is admissible.
a) However, the appeal court wrongly held that the plaintiff's request for legal protection was admissible as a staged action within the meaning of Section 254 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to Section 254 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), the specific specification of the benefits claimed by the plaintiff may be reserved if the claim for accounting, for the submission of an inventory of assets, or for the submission of an affidavit is combined with the claim for the return of what the defendant owes under the underlying legal relationship. The information sought in the context of a staged action is merely a tool to bring about the (still) lacking specificity of the claim for benefits. However, the link between an indeterminate claim for benefits and a preparatory claim for information, which is typical of a staged action, is not available if the information does not serve the purpose of determining the claim for benefits, but is intended to provide the plaintiff with other information about his legal proceedings that is not related to the specificity as such (Senate judgment of September 27, 2023 - IV ZR 177/22, VersR 2023, 1514, para. 24 with further references). This is the case here. The prerequisites for a claim for repayment of the premium portions paid for an invalid premium increase include the fact that the premium in an insured tariff was increased at a specific point in time. The plaintiff seeks to obtain this information only through the present action for information, which therefore serves not only to further determine an existing claim. The fact that the plaintiff also seeks to quantify a potentially existing claim does not help the staged action to become admissible.
b) However, a reinterpretation of the initially filed staged action as an objective joinder of claims independent of the staged action is conceivable, which presupposes a legitimate interest on the part of the plaintiff – at least sufficient for the grant of legal protection (cf. Senate judgment of September 27, 2023 – IV ZR 177/22, VersR 2023, 1514, para. 26 with further references). This is the case here. Based on the findings made by the Court of Appeal, the Senate can assess for itself whether the action should be reinterpreted in this way; no further findings are expected. According to her submissions, the plaintiff needs the information to examine which contribution increases have occurred in the past and whether she is entitled to reimbursement on this basis or whether she may reduce her current contribution payments. On this basis, the action for information is admissible. However, the question of the admissibility of the declaratory and benefit applications pending in the lower court does not arise here.
2. However, on the basis of the reasons given, the Court of Appeal should not have assumed that the plaintiff was entitled to the asserted right to information.
A right to copies of the information submitted for the purpose of premium adjustment in the form of insurance policies and supplements to the insurance policy, which is the purpose of this application, does not follow from Article 15(1) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (hereinafter GDPR). As the Senate decided and explained in detail in its judgment of 27 September 2023 (IV ZR 177/22, VersR 2023, 1514 para. 46 et seq.), the supplements to the insurance policy, as a whole, do not constitute personal data of the policyholder.
3. The decision on the request for information is also not correct for other reasons (Section 561 of the Code of Civil Procedure). According to the findings to date, a right to information does not arise from other provisions.
a) As the Senate decided and explained in detail in its judgment of September 27, 2023 (IV ZR 177/22, VersR 2023, 1514, marginal no. 42), it cannot be based on Section 3 (3) of the Insurance Contract Act (VVG). Furthermore, in its judgment of February 21, 2024 (IV ZR 311/22, r+s 2024, 314, marginal no. 18), the Senate decided and explained in detail that a right to the transmission of previous supplements to the insurance policy does not arise from Section 7 (4) of the Insurance Contract Act either.
b) Whether the plaintiff could be entitled to the asserted right to information under Section 242 of the German Civil Code (BGB) cannot be decided on the basis of the findings to date. According to Section 242 of the German Civil Code (BGB), the debtor is exceptionally obliged to provide information within the framework of a legal relationship if the entitled party is justifiably uncertain about the existence and scope of his or her right and the obligated party can easily provide the information necessary to eliminate the uncertainty (cf. Senate judgment of September 27, 2023 - IV ZR 177/22, VersR 2023, 1514, para. 30). As the Senate decided and explained in detail in its judgment of September 27, 2023 (loc. cit., para. 31), such a claim is generally conceivable if the policyholder in private health insurance requests information about past premium increases. However, the right to information requires findings that the plaintiff no longer has the documents specified in the request for information – which the defendant disputed here – and why the loss occurred. Only the explanation of the reasons for the loss by the policyholder makes it possible to assess whether the policyholder, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case and observing the principle of proportionality, is exceptionally entitled to a right to information under Section 242 of the German Civil Code (BGB) (see Senate judgment of September 27, 2023, ibid., para. 40 with further references). The general assumption that a policyholder does not have to consider letters from the insurer worthy of retention is not sufficient in this respect (Senate judgment of February 21, 2024 - IV ZR 311/22, r+s 2024, 314 para. 14).
III. The case must be remanded to the Court of Appeal for a new hearing and decision to the extent of the annulment. The Senate cannot decide on the merits, as the Court of Appeal will first have to make the necessary findings regarding the requirements for a right to information under Section 242 of the German Civil Code. Contrary to the opinion of the appeal, the Regional Court's assumption that no evidence was presented regarding a possible loss of the documents cannot be accepted in this respect. The plaintiff repeated her statement from the statement of claim that she was no longer in possession of the documents in the grounds of appeal. In its legal opinion, the Court of Appeal simply had no reason to inform her of the need to offer evidence and provide further evidence regarding the circumstances of the loss; it will have to do so in compliance with the Senate's legal opinion.

Prof. Dr. Karczewski Harsdorf-Gebhardt Dr. Brockmöller
Dr. Bußmann Dr. Bommel