BGH - I ZB 36/25

BGH - Az. I ZB 36/25
Court:	BGH (Germany)
Jurisdiction:	Germany
Relevant Law:	Article 80(1) GDPR § 78(1) ZPO
Decided:	15.09.2025
Published:
Parties:
National Case Number/Name:	Az. I ZB 36/25
European Case Law Identifier:
Appeal from:
Appeal to:
Original Language(s):	German
Original Source:	BGH (in German)
Initial Contributor:	RP

The German Federal Court of Justice held that the right to mandate a not-for-profit organisation under Article 80(1) GDPR does not override national provisions requiring the representation by a lawyer for certain court procedures.

English Summary

Facts

A data subject filed a lawsuit against a psychiatrist who had prepared a psychological report in family proceedings on behalf of a district court. The data subject claimed that the psychiatrist had unlawfully processed their personal data and relied on Article 79 GDPR.

The District Court dismissed the action. The data subject then filed an appeal before the Regional Court, represented not by a lawyer but by a non-profit association.

The Regional Court rejected the appeal as inadmissible because, under § 78(1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung – ZPO), parties before Regional and Higher Regional Courts must be represented by a lawyer.

The data subject sought legal aid (Prozesskostenhilfe) to challenge this decision before the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH).

Holding

The BGH rejected the application for legal aid because the prosecution did not offer a sufficient prospect of success. The Court clarified that Article 80(1) GDPR did not change the national rule in § 78(1) ZPO, which requires representation by a lawyer before higher courts. Article 80(1) GDPR allows certain non-profit organisations to act on behalf of data subjects in exercising rights under Articles 77, 78 and 79 GDPR, but it does not give these organisations the right to represent parties in court proceedings where legal representation is mandatory. The Court explained that Article 80(1) GDPR regulates the right of a data subject to authorise an organisation to act on their behalf, but it does not confer postulatory capacity or modify procedural requirements under national law.

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.

Principle

The requirement stipulated in Section 78 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) that parties must be represented by a lawyer before the Regional Courts and the Higher Regional Courts is not modified by Article 80 Paragraph 1 of the GDPR.

Judgment

The plaintiff's application for legal aid to conduct the appeal on points of law proceedings with the appointment of lawyer Kofler at the Federal Court of Justice is denied.

Reasons

I. The defendant is a specialist in psychiatry and psychotherapy and prepared a preliminary expert report on family psychology for the Sonneberg Local Court in a family law case in which the plaintiff is a defendant. The Local Court dismissed the plaintiff's action against the processing of her data, based on Article 79 of the GDPR. The plaintiff appealed this decision without legal representation. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as inadmissible because "A. e.V.", representing the plaintiff, was not authorized to appear before the Regional Court.

The plaintiff seeks legal aid for her intended appeal on points of law against the Court of Appeals' dismissal order and the appointment of attorney Kofler to represent her at the Federal Court of Justice.

II. The plaintiff's application for legal aid must be denied because the intended legal action does not offer sufficient prospects of success (Section 114 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure). The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the plaintiff's appeal as inadmissible pursuant to Section 522 Paragraph 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure because she was represented not by an attorney, but by "A. e.V." when filing the appeal.

1. Pursuant to Section 78 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure, parties must be represented by an attorney before the Regional Courts and Higher Regional Courts. The Court of Appeal correctly concluded that "A. e.V." lacks standing to sue in the appeal proceedings before the Regional Court pursuant to Section 78 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) because it is not a lawyer.

2. Contrary to the plaintiff's assertion, Article 80 Paragraph 1 of the GDPR does not lead to a different conclusion. According to this provision, a data subject has the right to entrust a non-profit body, organization, or association, duly established under the law of a Member State, whose statutory objectives are in the public interest and which is active in the area of protecting the rights and freedoms of data subjects with regard to the protection of their personal data, with lodging a complaint on their behalf, exercising the rights referred to in Articles 77, 78, and 79 of the GDPR on their behalf, and exercising the right to compensation pursuant to Article 82 of the GDPR, where provided for by the law of the Member States.


The data subject has the right to entrust a non-profit body, organization, or association, duly established under the law of a Member State, whose statutory objectives are in the public interest and which is active in the area of protecting the rights and freedoms of data subjects with regard to the protection of their personal data, with lodging a complaint on their behalf, exercising the rights referred to in Articles 77, 78, and 79 of the GDPR on their behalf, and exercising the right to compensation pursuant to Article 82 of the GDPR, where provided for by the law of the Member States.


``` As the Court of Appeal correctly recognized, the requirement stipulated in Section 78 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) that parties must be represented by a lawyer before the Regional Courts and Higher Regional Courts is not modified by Article 80 Paragraph 1 of the GDPR (general opinion; see Administrative Court Weimar, LKV 2022, 429 [juris Rn. 31 f.]; Plath/Becker, GDPR/BDSG/TTDSG, 4th ed., Article 80 GDPR Rn. 3; Nemitz in Ehmann/Selmayr, GDPR, 3rd ed., Article 80 Rn. 10; Moos/Schefzig in Taeger/Gabel, GDPR - BDSG - TTDSG, 4th ed., Article 80 GDPR Rn. 16; Werkmeister in Gola/Heckmann, GDPR - BDSG, 3rd ed., Article 80 GDPR Paragraph 8; similarly Kreße in Sydow/Marsch, GDPR/BDSG, 3rd ed., Art. 80 GDPR para. 11; leaving the question open Bergt in Kühling/Buchner, GDPR BDSG, 4th ed., Art. 80 GDPR paras. 11a to c; Halder, Private Enforcement and Data Protection Law, 2022, para. 112). This is already clear from the wording of Art. 80 para. 1 GDPR. The provision does not stipulate that the institutions, organizations, and associations mentioned therein can lodge legal remedies themselves, but only that they can exercise the rights mentioned in Art. 77, 78, and 79 GDPR on behalf of the data subject (cf. VG Weimar, LKV 2022, 429 [juris para. 32]; Bergt in Kühling/Buchner, loc. cit., Art. 80 GDPR para. 11c). Article 80(1) GDPR therefore only concerns the right to file a complaint or conduct legal proceedings on behalf of another. It does not confer the right to represent clients in court proceedings under Section 78(1), sentence 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO).

3. Due to the clear wording of Article 80(1) GDPR and the almost unanimous assessment of its scope in case law and legal literature, the present case does not raise a question of fundamental importance. The decision of the Meiningen Regional Court of June 25, 2025 (4 T 63/25) submitted by the plaintiff regarding the right to represent clients in court proceedings under Section 79(2) ZPO does not alter this conclusion. The principle of equality before the law, guaranteed by Article 3 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 20 Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law, therefore does not require that the plaintiff's case be deemed to have merit and that she be granted legal aid (see Federal Court of Justice, decision of March 17, 2004 - XII ZB 192/02, NJW 2004, 2022 [juris Rn. 7] with further references).

Koch Löffler Schwonke

Feddersen Pohl