LAG Nürnberg - 2 Ta 76/20
From GDPRhub
| LAG Nürnberg - 2 Ta 76/20 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | LAG Nürnberg (Germany) |
| Jurisdiction: | Germany |
| Relevant Law: | Article 15 GDPR § 63(2) GKG § 63(3) Second Sentence GKG § 68(1) Third Sentence GKG § 23(3) Second Sentence RVG § 32(2) RVG |
| Decided: | |
| Published: | |
| Parties: | |
| National Case Number/Name: | 2 Ta 76/20 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | |
| Appeal from: | ArbG Bamberg (Germany) 4 Ca 44/20 |
| Appeal to: | |
| Original Language(s): | German |
| Original Source: | Bayern.Recht (in German) |
| Initial Contributor: | ManTechnologist |
The value of a request for information under Art. 15 GDPR is 500.00 Euro, unless special circumstances arise (like LAG Düsseldorf 16.12.2019 - 4 Ta 413/19).
English Summary
Facts
After court settlement the parties argued about the amount in dispute for the data subject request.
Holding
The value of a request for information under Art. 15 DSGVO is 500.00 Euro, unless special circumstances arise (like LAG Düsseldorf 16.12.2019 - 4 Ta 413/19).
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.
A. The parties disputed the termination of the employment relationship on the basis of a notice of termination dated 03.01.2020 (applications under 1 and 2), the issue of an interim certificate (application under 3), the issue of written proof of the collective agreements applicable to the employment relationship, etc. (Motion 4), as well as for information about the stored personal performance data and the provision of a copy (Motion 5). The plaintiff's monthly income was € 3,130.44. The proceedings ended with a court settlement that was approved by the court on 17 April 2020. In this settlement, the parties agreed among other things on the termination of the employment relationship as of 31.01.2020 against payment of a severance payment, the removal of a warning from the personnel file, the payment of a further gross amount of € 2,087.81, the issue of a qualified certificate with the rating "good" and a compensation clause. In its decision of 21 April 2020, the Labour Court set the value of the subject matter of the proceedings at €13,147.84 and the value of the settlement at €19,456.84. It based the dispute on three monthly salaries (= € 9,391.32), the issue of the certificate on one monthly salary (= € 3,130.44), the issue of written evidence on 10% of a monthly salary (= € 313.04) and the provision of information and a copy of performance data also on 10% of a monthly salary (= € 313.04). For the settlement, it additionally took into account a monthly remuneration for the agreement on the removal of the warning (= € 3,130.44) as well as € 3,178.56 for the out-of-court holiday compensation claims that were also settled. In a written statement dated 28 April 2020, the representative of the plaintiff filed an appeal against this. He is of the opinion that the claim for 5 (information on performance data) is to be assessed at € 5,000. The Labour Court did not help the appeal with its decision of 29 April 2020. According to I No. 7 of the Disputed Value Catalogue 2018 for the labour courts (working paper/proof according to the Law on Evidence), the application was correctly assessed at 10% of a monthly salary. The Regional Labor Court gave the parties involved the opportunity to submit comments until May 27, 2020. In a written statement dated May 25, 2020 (sheet 62 of the files), the representative of the plaintiff maintained his opinion. The other parties involved did not submit any comments. B. I. The appeal is admissible. It is admissible, § 68.1 of the Basic Law, since it is directed against an order fixing the value of the court fee pursuant to § 63.2 of the Basic Law. This also applies to the determination of a settlement surplus value (LAG Nürnberg 24.02.2016 - 4 Ta 16/16 juris mwN). The value of the subject matter of the appeal exceeds € 200. The appeal was filed within the period stipulated in § 63.3 sentence 2 GKG, § 68.1 sentence 3 GKG. The plaintiff's representative can file a complaint of his own right, § 32, Subsection 2, RVG. II The complaint is only justified to a small extent. In the opinion of the Complaints Court, for the application under 5 (information under Article 15 of the DSGVO), not 10% of a monthly income but € 500 was to be fixed. Apart from this, the decision to fix the amount is not objectionable. Since 1 January 2020, Chamber 2 of the Nuremberg Regional Labour Court, which has had sole jurisdiction for value in dispute complaints, has in principle followed the proposals of the value in dispute commission set up at the level of the Regional Labour Courts. These are laid down in the current catalogue of amounts in dispute for the labour courts (current version dated 09.02.2018, NZA 2018, 498). The Catalogue of Amounts in Litigation is not binding. However, from the point of view of the recognising court, it represents a balanced orientation for the labour courts which is in accordance with the legal requirements. 1 In his fifth motion for a preliminary ruling, the plaintiff asserted his right to information under Article 15 of the DSVGO. In this respect, the catalogue of values in dispute does not contain any express recommendation. In its decision of 16.12.2019 - 4 Ta 413/19, the Higher Labor Court of Düsseldorf considered an object value of € 500,- to be appropriate for normal cases. The Board of Appeal followed this decision. 2) The right to information according to art. 15 DSGVO is a dispute not related to property law in the sense of § 23 (3) sentence 2 2nd Hs. RVG (LAG Düsseldorf 16.12.2019 - 4 Ta 413/19 juris). It is rooted in the personal rights of the creditor. The claim does not primarily serve economic interests. It is not evident that such interests exist in the given case and are to be enforced with the request for information and thus, exceptionally, the economic interest of the creditor could be decisive for the assessment of the subject matter of the dispute. Pursuant to § 23 para. 3 sentence 2 second sentence of the RVG, in the absence of sufficient factual evidence for an estimate and in the case of non-pecuniary objects the value of the object is to be assumed to be EUR 5,000.00, depending on the situation of the case lower or higher, but not higher than EUR 500,000.00. According to the consistent case law of the regional labour courts, the material significance of the object, its difficulty and its scope are taken as the yardstick for determining the value. In the first instance, the applicant's point of view is decisive. In addition, the economic effects of the request and the legal and factual particularities of the case are to be taken into account appropriately (see for example LAG Düsseldorf loc. cit.) 3. on this basis, the value of a request for information under Art. 15 DSGVO is to be assessed at EUR 500.00, unless special circumstances arise (LAG Düsseldorf loc.cit. with reference to OLG Cologne, 05.02.2018 - 9 U 120/17, juris [EUR 600.00]). For it is not recognisable in the present case that the personal rights of the information creditor would be affected in a way that would go beyond the simple, mass granted right to information, which is intended to satisfy a general interest in information. The difficulty and scope of the case do not give rise to any indications of a higher valuation, since it is a simple point of contention that is not disputed in the matter and difficult to assess. If, in addition, the economic effects of the request are taken into account, there is no indication on the creditor's side for a higher valuation, as explained. If, in addition, the effort to be made on the debtor's side is adequately taken into account when assessing the value, nothing else results. In view of the consistently available EDP technology, the expenditure is extremely low (LAG Düsseldorf loc. cit., cf. for instance on the assessment of the so-called defence interest of a debtor who has been ordered to provide information BGH 07.11.2017 - II ZB 4/17, juris [400.00 Euro] and OLG Köln, 20.12.2018 - 19 U 169/18, juris [600.00 Euro]). (4) With regard to the assessment of the other (co-executed) matters in dispute, the Labour Court based itself on the current list of disputed values and applied it correctly. In this respect the plaintiff did not raise any objections either. The values of the objects were therefore to be increased in each case by 186.96 € (500.- € - 313.04 €) III. the decision could be made by the chairman alone without an oral hearing, § 78 sentence 3 ArbGG. IV. There was no reason for a decision on costs, since the appeal proceedings are free of charge and no reimbursement of costs is made, § 68 (3) GKG.
