BFH - Az. IX B 72/25
| BFH - Az. IX B 72/25 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | BFH (Germany) |
| Jurisdiction: | Germany |
| Relevant Law: | Article 15 GDPR Article 78(2) GDPR |
| Decided: | 04.11.2025 |
| Published: | 21.11.2025 |
| Parties: | |
| National Case Number/Name: | Az. IX B 72/25 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | |
| Appeal from: | |
| Appeal to: | |
| Original Language(s): | German |
| Original Source: | BFH (in German) |
| Initial Contributor: | RP |
The BFH held that GDPR access requests to court administrations fall under administrative, not tax law. Complaints under Article 78(2) GDPR must go to administrative courts, not financial courts.
English Summary
Facts
A data subject submitted an access request under Article 15 GDPR to the court administration of the Financial Court Berlin-Brandenburg (Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg - FG). The data subject considered the response incomplete. Subsequently, they filed a complaint with the Brandenburg State Commissioner for Data Protection (Landesbeauftragter für den Datenschutz Brandenburg) under Article 77 GDPR but did not receive a reply within three months.
The data subject then brought an action for inaction under Article 78(2) GDPR against the supervisory authority. They requested that the authority order the court administration to answer their access request immediately and completely. The Financial Court referred the dispute to the local Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht - VG), stating that the German Fiscal Code gives financial courts jurisdiction only for GDPR disputes concerning tax authorities and tax matters. The data subject challenged this referral, arguing that the court administration is a public body, its data processing occurs in a tax context, and the financial courts were therefore competent.
Holding
The Bundesfinanzhof (BFH) rejected the complaint. It held that a request under Article 15 GDPR to a court administration does not involve processing by a tax authority and is not a tax matter. The granting or refusal of access by a court administration constitutes general administrative activity, not judicial activity. Therefore, the German Fiscal Code does not grant financial courts jurisdiction.
The BFH confirmed that the correct legal route for an inaction complaint under Article 78(2) GDPR in this context is through the administrative courts. The referral by the Financial Court to the local Administrative Court was lawful. The data subject’s appeal against the referral was dismissed, and the costs were to be borne by the data subject.
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.
Subject Legal recourse for actions under Article 78(2) GDPR in the case of applications under Article 15 GDPR to the court administration Principle Not applicable: The allocation of legal recourse under Section 32i(1), sentence 1 of the German Fiscal Code (AO) for actions between a data subject and the competent supervisory authority for fiscal court jurisdiction requires that the dispute originates from a conflict between the data subject and a tax authority (Section 6(2) AO) in tax matters. Ruling The plaintiff's appeal against the decision of the Berlin-Brandenburg Fiscal Court of July 22, 2025 – 12 K 12075/25 – is dismissed as unfounded. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. Facts I. The plaintiff and appellant (plaintiff) filed an appeal with the Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) on October 15, 2024, because he considered a statement issued by the President of the Berlin-Brandenburg Fiscal Court (FG) on September 25, 2024, to be incomplete pursuant to Article 15 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). By decision of January 24, 2025 – IX B 99/24 – the BFH declared itself to lack jurisdiction and referred the proceedings to the Administrative Court (VG) … On November 13, 2024, the plaintiff filed a complaint in this matter with the State Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information of Brandenburg (defendant and respondent – defendant) pursuant to Article 77 GDPR. The plaintiff received no response to his complaint. On June 8, 2025, the plaintiff filed an action for failure to act against the defendant pursuant to Article 78(2) GDPR. He sought a judgment ordering the defendant to instruct the Finance Court (FG) pursuant to Article 58(2)(c) GDPR to promptly, fully, and accurately answer his request to the President of the Finance Court pursuant to Article 15 GDPR. In the event of an incomplete answer, the necessary enforcement measures should be taken. By decision of July 22, 2025 – 12 K 12075/25 – the Finance Court referred the case to the Administrative Court (VG). The court held that recourse to the Finance Courts pursuant to Section 32i of the German Fiscal Code (AO) was not available. The allocation of jurisdiction to the tax courts pursuant to Section 32i of the German Fiscal Code (AO) for disputes concerning rights under Article 78(1) and (2) of the GDPR requires that the disputes relate to the processing of data protected under Section 30 of the AO. The plaintiff's claim relates solely to the incomplete response to his application under Article 15 of the GDPR and thus not to the processing of data protected by tax secrecy. The plaintiff appeals this decision. He argues, among other things, that the referral order is unlawful. According to Section 32i of the AO, jurisdiction lies with the tax courts. This is a dispute under Article 78 of the GDPR. Organs of the administration of justice, such as the Tax Court, are public bodies of the federal states. The processing of personal data occurred in a tax-related context. Since the activities of the court administration are to be classified as administrative activities, the defendant, as the data protection supervisory authority, has jurisdiction. The plaintiff essentially requests that the decision of the Finance Court of July 22, 2025 – 12 K 12075/25 – be set aside. The defendant essentially requests that the appeal be dismissed. Reasons II. The appeal is unfounded. The Finance Court correctly referred the case to the competent Administrative Court pursuant to Section 155 of the Fiscal Court Code (FGO) in conjunction with Section 17a, paragraph 2, sentence 1, and paragraph 4, sentences 1 and 2, of the Courts Constitution Act. The Finance Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. 1. The granting or refusal of information under Article 15 GDPR by a court does not constitute judicial activity. It is a task of general administration outside of judicial proceedings. The Senate refers in this regard to its decision of January 24, 2025 – IX B 99/24, para. 6. For this reason, if a complaint has been lodged under Article 77 GDPR concerning this matter and the complainant has not been informed of the status or outcome of the complaint within three months, the administrative legal process is available for a judicial remedy pursuant to Article 78(2) GDPR. This is because jurisdiction in this respect is governed by the law of the Member States (see Ehmann/Selmayr/Nemitz, 3rd ed., GDPR Art. 78 para. 6; Sydow in Sydow/Marsch, GDPR BDSG, 3rd ed., Art. 78 para. 38). Since this is a (general) public law dispute of a non-constitutional nature (action for failure to act pursuant to Article 78(2) GDPR) and no specific statutory allocation of jurisdiction applies, recourse to the administrative courts is available pursuant to Section 40(1) of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO). Recourse to the tax courts is not available pursuant to Section 33(1) No. 4 FGO in conjunction with Section 32i(1) Sentence 1 AO. For disputes concerning rights under Article 78(1) and (2) GDPR regarding the processing of data protected under Section 30 of the German Fiscal Code (AO), including disputes between a data subject and the competent supervisory authority of a state, recourse to the fiscal courts is available (see Tormöhlen in Hübschmann/Hepp/Spitaler --HHSp--, Section 32i AO, marginal note 15; Krumm in Tipke/Kruse, Section 32i AO, marginal note 3; Schober in Gosch, AO Section 32i, marginal note 11; Baum in AO - eKomm, Section 32i AO, marginal note 8, as of May 25, 2023). Section 32i AO assigns disputes within the scope of application of the German Fiscal Code to the fiscal courts and refers to fiscal authorities (Section 6(2) AO). The judicial administration is not covered by this provision (see Tormöhlen in HHSp, § 32i AO para. 15; Krumm in Tipke/Kruse, § 32i AO para. 3; Halder, juris PraxisReport IT-Recht 8/2025, note 5, under C.). The allocation of jurisdiction to the fiscal courts pursuant to Section 32i para. 1 sentence 1 AO is intended to apply only to disputes with the supervisory authority in tax matters (see BTDrucks 18/12611, p. 92; Brandt, juris PraxisReport Steuerrecht 20/2025, note 5, under D.). This also follows from the systematic connection with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the provision, which presuppose the processing of personal data by a tax authority or its processors, or cooperation with a tax authority (see BTDrucks 18/12611, pp. 92 et seq.). The allocation of jurisdiction therefore requires that the dispute between the data subject and the supervisory authority originate from a dispute between the data subject and a tax authority in tax matters. The dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant originates from the plaintiff's application to the court administration pursuant to Article 15 GDPR. However, the court administration is neither a tax authority nor does it operate within the scope of the German Fiscal Code (Abgabenordnung) and thus in tax matters. 2. Due to the defendant's jurisdiction over several administrative court districts, local jurisdiction is determined according to Section 52 No. 3 Sentences 2 and 5 of the German Code of Administrative Procedure (VwGO) based on the applicant's place of residence. The stated place of residence falls within the administrative court district of… 3. The decision on costs is based on Section 135 Paragraph 2 of the German Fiscal Court Code (FGO). The challenge to the decision regarding the legal recourse triggers an independent appeal procedure in which the costs are decided according to the general provisions (Federal Fiscal Court decision of 07.04.2020 - II B 82/19, BFHE 268, 489, BStBl II 2020, 624, para. 23).
