LG Frankfurt am Main - 2-03 O 356/20

From GDPRhub
LG Frankfurt am Main - 2-03 O 356/20
Courts logo1.png
Court: LG Frankfurt (Germany)
Jurisdiction: Germany
Relevant Law: Article 6 GDPR
Article 79 GDPR
§ 823 BGB
§ 1004 BGB
Decided: 15.10.2020
Published:
Parties:
National Case Number/Name: 2-03 O 356/20
European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:DE:LGFFM:2020:1015.2.03O356.20.00
Appeal from:
Appeal to:
Original Language(s): German
Original Source: Bürgerservice Hessenrecht (in German)
Initial Contributor: Agnieszka Rapcewicz

The Regional Court Frankfurt am Main (LG Frankfurt am Main) decided that the person affected by illegal data processing (outside the journalistic/editorial field) can assert claims for data protection by way of a civil law injunction claim. Such claims are not blocked by Article 79 GDPR.

English Summary[edit | edit source]

Facts[edit | edit source]

It follows from the court decision that the applicant rents a property from the defendant company. Most probably (this does not result directly from the decision) there was a dispute between the parties concerning the tenancy contract (probably the tenancy rent) and the defendant wanted to distribute the applicant's personal data related to the tenancy contract by publicly displaying the contract. Due to the urgency of the case and the threat to the claimant's personal data, the claimant filed a demand with the court to issue an injunction prohibiting the defendant from making the contract public.

Dispute[edit | edit source]

Can a person affected by illegal data processing (outside the journalistic/editorial area) assert claims for data protection by way of a civil law injunction claim?

Holding[edit | edit source]

The court found that a person affected by illegal data processing (outside the journalistic/editorial area) may pursue claims for data protection by means of a court injunction. Such claims are not blocked by Article 79 GDPR.

Furthermore, the court considered that the lack of correspondence among the parties in the time between the letter of warning and the application in the preliminary injunction procedure does not lead to the rejection of the application, but only to the obligation of the court to examine it.

Comment[edit | edit source]

The court found that the defendant may not rely on one of the grounds indicated in Article 6(1) to publicly display the contract. The publication of the tenancy contract may not be justified by the necessity of processing for the performance of the tenancy contract (Article 6(1)(b)). That the defendant has relied on a legitimate interest under Article 6(1)(f), was neither been submitted by the defendant nor was it otherwise apparent.

The defendant also claimed that there was a discrepancy between the warning he received and the application for an injunction. The court stated that this was not a reason to reject the application, but only to have it examined by the court.

Further Resources[edit | edit source]

Share blogs or news articles here!

English Machine Translation of the Decision[edit | edit source]

The decision below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details.

Right to injunctive relief for illegal data processing
Guiding principle
1.
The party affected by an illegal data processing (outside the journalistic/editorial field) can assert claims for data protection by way of injunction
claim. Such claims are not blocked by Art. 79 GDPR.
2.
The lack of congruence between the warning notice and the application in the preliminary injunction proceedings does not lead to the rejection of the application, but only to an obligation on the court to hear the application.
Note
contestable
Tenor
The defendant is prohibited from enforcing a temporary injunction - without an oral hearing due to urgency - against his Management Board for each case of infringement, avoiding an administrative fine of up to EUR 250,000.00 or, alternatively, administrative detention or imprisonment for up to six months,
personal data concerning the applicant, which are used in connection with her
the defendant's tenancy, to distribute it / have it distributed,
if this is done as by the public display of the rental contract between the
Applicant and defendant by Mr X in the meeting of the Y e.V.
on the evening of .... 2020 in Z-Straße in Frankfurt am Main.
Order the defendant to pay the costs of the summary proceedings.
The amount in dispute is set at € 10,000.
Reasons
The resolution is based on §§ 823, 1004 BGB in conjunction with Article 1 (1), 2 (1) of the Basic Law, Article 6
paragraph 1, 79 GDPR, §§ 3, 32, 91, 890, 935 et seq. ZPO, 53 (1) GKG in conjunction with the information in
the application form.
In this respect, the Chamber assumes that the person concerned can also assert claims under data protection law by way of injunction and that such claims are not blocked by Art. 79 GDPR (see also LG Frankfurt a.M.,
Judgement v. 13.09.2018 - 2-03 O 283/18, ZD 2018, 587; LG Darmstadt, judgement of 26.05.2020 –
13 O 244/19; Ehmann/Selmayr-Kamann/Braun, Art. 21 marginal 5; Kühling/Buchner/Bergt, 3.
2020 edition, GDPR Art. 79 margin 1, 15a; Spindler/Schuster/Spindler/Dalby, 4th edition 2019,
GDPR Art. 79 marginal 17; Paal/Pauly/Martini, 2nd edition 2018 marginal 12, GDPR Art. 79 marginal 12;
MAH-ArbR-Dendorfer-Ditges, 4th ed. 2017, § 35 marginal no. 259). The defendant may
not invoke one of the grounds in Art. 6 para. 1 GDPR for the use of the data. The display of the data in the rental agreement is not affected by the purpose of the agreement according to
Art. 6 para. 1 lit. b) GDPR. The fact that the defendant has relied
interest under Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR, has neither been submitted nor has it been
otherwise visible.
Insofar as the defendant states in his statement in the course of the written hearing that the warning letter and the statement of claim are not identical, which according to
If the Board's opinion is correct, this does not lead to the rejection of the application in this case.
request, but only to a hearing obligation - fulfilled by the Board - of the
Court.
The ground of urgency has been established. The applicant has substantiated that on 24.08.2020 it became aware of the infringement by the defendant
has. A wait that would refute the urgency is, according to the
Chamber and the competent Press Senate cannot accept the standards to be applied in this respect.