Difference between revisions of "LG Berlin - (526 OWi LG) 212 Js-OWi 1/20 (1/20), 526 OWiG LG 1/20"

From GDPRhub
Line 14: Line 14:
 
|Original_Source_Language_1=German
 
|Original_Source_Language_1=German
 
|Original_Source_Language__Code_1=DE
 
|Original_Source_Language__Code_1=DE
 +
|Original_Source_Name_2=LG Berlin (26 große Strafkammer), Beschluss vom 18.02.2021 - (526 OWi LG) 212 Js-OWi 1/20 (1/20)
  
|Date_Decided=
+
|Date_Decided=18.02.2021
 
|Date_Published=23.02.2021
 
|Date_Published=23.02.2021
 
|Year=
 
|Year=
Line 55: Line 56:
  
 
===Facts===
 
===Facts===
The Data Protection Authority of Berlin fined Deutsche Wohnen SE for violating Art. 5 (1) (c) and (e) GDPR. Regarding the DPA the company didn't delete old data of tenants in a sufficient way. The Deutsche Wohnen SE appealed against a fine of the DPA Berlin.
+
The Data Protection Authority of Berlin fined Deutsche Wohnen SE for violating Art. 5 (1) (c) and (e) GDPR. Regarding the DPA the company didn't delete old data of tenants in a sufficient way. The Deutsche Wohnen SE appealed against a fine of the DPA Berlin which was confirmed by the LG Berlin.
 +
 
 +
The Deutsche Wohnen SE processed data like proofs of identity, work, salary and creditworthiness as well as data about health insurance, social insurance and tax within the framework of business activities.
 +
 
 
===Holding===
 
===Holding===
The LG Berlin held that the fine notice wasn't valid.
+
The LG Berlin held that the fine notice wasn't valid. The fine notice was enacted against the Deutsche Wohnen SE as a legal entity under private law which is reperesented by its management. But regarding the LG Berlin a legal entity can't be the subject of a fine procedure. According to the LG Berlin, only a natural person could commit an administrative offence in a reproachable way, while the legal entity just could be a secondary party, to which the actions of its representatives or board members are attributable. The DPA Berlin on the contrary held the opinion that a legal entity and a natural person can be treated in the same way in Administrative Offences Law.
 +
Furthermore the fine notice neither didn't name the board member who committed or ommitted the relevant action nor made any information about time and scene of the administrative offence or on what the reproach is supported. Therefore the fine notice also can't be reinterpreted into a separate decision according to § 30 (4) OWiG without having to adjust the fine procedure.
  
 
==Comment==
 
==Comment==

Revision as of 15:39, 5 April 2021

LG Berlin - Deutsche Wohnen SE
Courts logo1.png
Court: LG Berlin (Germany)
Jurisdiction: Germany
Relevant Law: Article 5(1)(b) GDPR
Article 5(1)(e) GDPR
Decided: 18.02.2021 [[Category:]]
Published: 23.02.2021 [[Category:]]
Parties:
National Case Number/Name: Deutsche Wohnen SE
European Case Law Identifier:
Appeal from:
Appeal to: Unknown
Original Language(s): German
Original Source: deutsche-wohnen.com (in German)
Initial Contributor: n/a

The Regional Court Berlin (Landgericht Berlin - LG Berlin) stopped the fine proceeding against the company Deutsche Wohnen SE, which the Data Protection Authority of Berlin fined €14.500.000 for violating Art. 5(1)(c) and (e) GDPR.

English Summary

Facts

The Data Protection Authority of Berlin fined Deutsche Wohnen SE for violating Art. 5 (1) (c) and (e) GDPR. Regarding the DPA the company didn't delete old data of tenants in a sufficient way. The Deutsche Wohnen SE appealed against a fine of the DPA Berlin which was confirmed by the LG Berlin.

The Deutsche Wohnen SE processed data like proofs of identity, work, salary and creditworthiness as well as data about health insurance, social insurance and tax within the framework of business activities.

Holding

The LG Berlin held that the fine notice wasn't valid. The fine notice was enacted against the Deutsche Wohnen SE as a legal entity under private law which is reperesented by its management. But regarding the LG Berlin a legal entity can't be the subject of a fine procedure. According to the LG Berlin, only a natural person could commit an administrative offence in a reproachable way, while the legal entity just could be a secondary party, to which the actions of its representatives or board members are attributable. The DPA Berlin on the contrary held the opinion that a legal entity and a natural person can be treated in the same way in Administrative Offences Law. Furthermore the fine notice neither didn't name the board member who committed or ommitted the relevant action nor made any information about time and scene of the administrative offence or on what the reproach is supported. Therefore the fine notice also can't be reinterpreted into a separate decision according to § 30 (4) OWiG without having to adjust the fine procedure.

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.