Search results

DSGVO BDSG, Article 21 GDPR, margin number 13 (C.H. Beck 2019, 3rd Edition). LG Hamburg, 23 July 2020, 334 O 161/19 (available here). Herbst, in Kühling,

IP address in particular can serve as a person-specific characteristic (cf. LG München I, judgement of 20.1.2022 - 3 O 17493/20) and can be used for identification

The Regional Court Berlin (Landgericht Berlin - LG Berlin) overturned the decision of the DPA of Berlin, to fine Deutsche Wohnen SE €14,500,000 for violating

perception of third-party financial interests (see LG Wuppertal, judgment of July 29, 2021, 4 O 409/20; LG Aurich, Judgment of June 8th, 2021, 3 O 1279/20)

the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details. LG Magdeburg, judgment of May 24th, 2022 - 9 O 1571/20 Source openJur 2023, 6512

does not therefore apply (also LG Essen ruling of November 10, 2022 - 6 O 111/22, GRUR-RS 2022, 34818 marginal number 38; LG Paderborn, judgment of December

159/82 -, NJW 1984, 436; LG Frankfurt a.M. loc. cit.; LG Aschaffenburg, Judgment of 7 October 2020 - 15 O 46/20 - ZD 2021, 214; LG Heilbronn, Judgment of

would not be possible to check the formal legality (cf. LG Wuppertal, r+s 2021, 696 para. 24; LG Detmold, BeckRS 2021, 34230 para. 24). 19 bb) The subsequent

Regulation, as well as the articles 152 of the Code and 10 of Legislative Decree lg. 1 September 2011, no. 150, opposition to this provision may be lodged with

Deutsche Wohnen European Case Law Identifier: n/a Appeal: Appealed - Confirmed LG Berlin (Germany) Original Language(s): English Original Source: Curia (in

matters have to be filed with one of the 16 Regional Court (Landesgericht - LG) instead of the district courts (Bezirksgericht - BG). Under national procedural

GDPR and awarded € 800 in emotional damages. The case is under appeal. See LG Feldkirch - 57 Cg 30/19b - 15. Share blogs or news articles here! The decision

LG Gießen (Germany) - 2 O 186/22 Court: LG Gießen (Germany) Jurisdiction: Germany Relevant Law: Article 15 GDPR § 242 BGB § 254 ZPO § 3 VVG Decided: 08

LG Wiesbaden - 10 O 14/21 Court: LG Wiesbaden (Germany) Jurisdiction: Germany Relevant Law: Article 4(11) GDPR Article 6(1) GDPR Article 26 GDPR Article

court. Based on comparable decisions (including LG Neuruppin, decision of October 4th, 2021 - 2 O 157/22; LG Aschaffenburg, judgment of October 7th, 2020

example in recital 75). In this regard, the Court considered the judgement of LG Essen, judgement of 23.9.2021 - 6 O 190/21, and held that in this case, there

(BeckOK DatenschutzR / Quaas, 32. Ed. 1.2.2020, DS-GVO Art. 82 Rn. 31) (see LG Cologne, judgment of 07.10.2020 - 28 O 71 / 20). The obligation to reimburse

filed a lawsuit with the Regional Court of Leipzig (Landgericht Leipzig - LG Leipzig) requesting the refund of overpaid premiums as well as information

LG Bonn - 29 OWi 1/20 Court: LG Bonn (Germany) Jurisdiction: Germany Relevant Law: Article 32(1) GDPR Article 32(2) GDPR Article 83(1) GDPR Article 83(2)

Austrian Regional Court ("LG Feldkirch") finds that generating information about political affiliation by the Austrian Postal service without a legal basis

Regulation, as well as the articles 152 of the Code and 10 of Legislative Decree lg. 1 September 2011, no. 150, opposition to this provision may be lodged with

Number/Name: BGH VI ZR 405/18 European Case Law Identifier: Appeal from: LG Frankfurt (Germany) LG Frankfurt am Main 2-03 O 190/16 Appeal to: Appealed - Overturned

initiated an action for injunction before Regional Court, Berlin (Landgericht (LG) Berlin) in Germany claiming that the information provided by the games in

the decisive fact rp p re se n ta to d e d o ct in co n o scib ility of a lg o rhythm u used for a sse g n a tio n for the p u n te g g io d i ra tin g

The access restriction shall be valid until: 13.07.2097 35 lg 1 p 1235(1)12 of the AvTS § 35 lg 1 p 3, AvTS § Notice of termination of Termination of proceedings

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights must also be taken into account (see also LG Wuppertal, judgment of 29.3.2019 - 17 O 178/18, BeckRS 2019, 13062), but this

court of first instance, the Regional Court of Aachen (Landgericht Aachen – LG Aachen), ruled in favour of the data subject. The controller appealed this

Regulation, as well as the articles 152 of the Code and 10 of Legislative Decree lg. 1 September 2011, no. 150, opposition to this provision may be lodged with

must at least be perceptible, irrespective of a materiality threshold (cf. LG Bonn, judgment of 01.07.2021 - 15 O 355/20 - juris). Otherwise, damage is

Regulation, as well as the articles 152 of the Code and 10 of Legislative Decree lg. 1 September 2011, no. 150, opposition to this provision may be lodged with

Regulation, as well as the articles 152 of the Code and 10 of Legislative Decree lg. 1 September 2011, no. 150, opposition to this provision may be lodged with

order and damages. The Regional Court of Darmstadt (Landgericht Darmstadt - LG Darmstadt) ordered the controller to cease-and-desist and to pay €1000 in

a culpable breach is to be assumed (cf. LG Karlsruhe, judgment of 02.08.2019 - 8 O 26/19, ZD 2019, 511, 512; LG Frankfurt a.M., Judgment of 18.01.2021 -

of the case by the by the LG Feldkirch. Also, he argued that substantial facts of the case had not been established by the LG Feldkirch and that he should

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights must also be taken into account (see also LG Wuppertal, Urt. v. 29.03.2019 - 17 O 178/18, BeckRS 2019, 13062), but this

personal data, settlement of the legal dispute, personal information Lower court: LG Munich I, final judgment of April 6th, 2020 - 3 O 909/19 Further information:

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:DE:OLGHB:2021:0716.1W18.21.00 Appeal from: LG Bremen (Germany) Appeal to: Original Language(s): German Original Source:

requests by the data subject. The first instance court (Regional Court Wels - LG Wels) rejected the lawsuit, holding that the controller had already fulfilled

data subject requested the Regional Court of Hamburg (Landgericht Hamburg – LG Hamburg) to order the controller to provide access to the information at issue

LG Berlin - 93 O 167/20 Court: LG Berlin (Germany) Jurisdiction: Germany Relevant Law: Article 6(1)(f) GDPR Article 13 GDPR Article 80(2) GDPR § 25 TTDSG

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 –

LG Lübeck - 15 O 74/22 Court: LG Lübeck (Germany) Jurisdiction: Germany Relevant Law: Article 82 GDPR Decided: 25.05.2023 Published: Parties: National

warning letter, the plaintiff brought an action before the LG Berlin under Article 79(2) GDPR. The LG held the action to be partially inadmissible, as the court

appropriate (following LG Regensburg, judgment of 11.05. 2023 - 72 O 731/22; OLG Stuttgart, decision of 03.01.2023 - 4 AR 4/22; LG Stuttgart and LG Ellwangen each

Article 82 GDPR, paragraph 12 f; Spittka, GRUR-Prax 2019, 475; LG Darmstadt, ZE 2020, 642; LG Frankfurt, ZE 2020, 639; restrictively Wytibul, NJW 2019, 3265)

LG Würzburg - 11 O 1741/18 UWG Court: LG Würzburg (Germany) Jurisdiction: Germany Relevant Law: Article 13 GDPR § 3 a UWG § 4 (11) UWG § 8 (3) UWG § 12

The Regional Court of Cologne (LG Köln) held that a search engine is not allowed to show search results if the linked website contains untrue factual claims

website by its operator. The Regional Court of Munich (Landgericht München - LG München) held that the transfer to Google via Google Fonts violated the GDPR

LG Wiesbaden - 3 S 50/21 Court: LG Wiesbaden (Germany) Jurisdiction: Germany Relevant Law: Article 2(2) GDPR Article 4(8) GDPR Article 15 GDPR Article

LG Gießen - 5 O 195/22 Court: LG Gießen (Germany) Jurisdiction: Germany Relevant Law: Article 82(1) GDPR Decided: 03.11.2022 Published: Parties: National

The Regional Court of Erfurt (LG Erfurt) requested a preliminary ruling by the CJEU on, among others, the question whether making an access request for

edition 2018, DS-GVO Art. 82 para. 13; LG Hamburg, judgment of September 4th, 2020 -324 S 9/19 -, Paragraph 34, juris; LG Lüneburg, loc.cit., para. 55, juris)

number 1 and the application numbers 3a and 3b (see: LG Kiel GRUR-RS 2023, 328 Rns. 25 to 29 and LG Aachen GRUR-RS 2023, 2621 Rns. 32 to 36 and 38 bis 40

also sufficiently specific (LG Bielefeld judgment of December 19, 2022 - 8 O 182/22, GRUR-RS 2022, 38375, para. 16 et seq.; LG Halle judgment of December

defendant. The subsequent applications in the preliminary injunction proceedings (LG Gießen, decision of 23.06.2020, ref.: 3 O 196/20 and OLG Frankfurt a. M.,

contract (OLG Dresden NJW-RR 2020, 429 marginal no. 4; LG Bremen MMR 2020, 426 marginal no. 37; LG Frankfurt a.M., judgement of 03.05.2020 - 2-03 O 411/20)

based (see LG Frankfurt a.M., Judgement of 17 August 2017 - 2-03 O 424/16, ZUM 2018, 58 = BeckRS 2017, 127772). 18.01.2018 - 2-03 O 156/17; LG Frankfurt

LG München - 23 O 10931/20 Court: LG München (Germany) Jurisdiction: Germany Relevant Law: Article 15 GDPR Article 82 GDPR Decided: 02.09.2021 Published:

dismissed the action and the data subject appealed the decision to the LG Baden-Baden. The LG Baden-Baden, making reference to the CJEU Judgment in CJEU - C-579/21

The Regional Court of Landshut (LG Landshut) held that it is not possible to claim damages against a Data Protection Officer (DPO) under Article 82 (1)

LG Heidelberg - 4 S 1/21 Court: LG Heidelberg (Germany) Jurisdiction: Germany Relevant Law: Article 82 GDPR Decided: 16.03.2022 Published: 07.04.2022 Parties:

LG Leipzig - 03 O 1268/21 Court: LG Leipzig (Germany) Jurisdiction: Germany Relevant Law: Article 15(3) GDPR Article 82(1) GDPR Decided: 23.12.2021 Published:

LG Baden-Baden - 3 O 277/22 Court: LG Baden-Baden (Germany) Jurisdiction: Germany Relevant Law: Article 6(1)(a) GDPR Article 82 GDPR § 242 BGB Decided:

protection of privacy (LG Berlin NJW 2016, 1966; LG Frankfurt a.M., Urt. v. 27.09.2018 - 2-03 O 320/17, BeckRS 2018, 25130; LG Frankfurt a.M., Judgement

against the controller with the Regional Court of Essen (Landgericht Essen - LG Essen). The Regional Court of Essen rejected the data subject's claim entirely

be permanently and completely deleted by CodeShip (also in a parallel case LG Munich I, judgment of December 9, 2021, 31 O 16606/20, juris, para. 36). In

The Regional Court Kassel (LG Kassel) held that an access request under Article 15 GDPR for non-data protection related purposes constitutes an abuse of

brought action against the association and asked the Regional Court of Munich (LG Münich) to declare the association’s claims unlawful. The German Court upheld

The First Regional Court of Munich (Landgericht München I - LG München I) underlines the importance of security measures for the processing of sensitive

German original. Please refer to the German original for more details. Court: LG Ravensburg 2nd Civil Chamber Decision date: June 13, 2023 File number: 2 O

of January 14, 2021 - 1 BvR 2853/19 -, juris para. 19 f.; Regional Court (LG) LG Saarbrücken, ECJ submission of November 22, 2021 - 5 O 151/19 -, juris para

from the judgments cited by the plaintiff (e.g. LG Munich I, final judgment of June 23, 2022 -50 3768/22; LG Munich I, final judgment of December 9, 2021

4491; LG Essen, loc. cit.; AG Strausberg, loc. 10.2021 - 16 O 128/20, ZD 2022, 48; LG Karlsruhe, judgment of 09.02.2021 - 4 O 67/20, ZD 2022, 55; LG Hamburg

prohibitions of discrimination (LG Frankfurt a.M., Judgement of 03.09.2020 - 2-03 O 282/20; OLG Dresden NJW-RR 2020, 429 marginal no. 4; LG Bremen MMR 2020, 426 marginal

against the controller before the Regional Court Cologne (Landgericht Köln - LG Köln) requesting that the court orders the controller to delete the entry

LG Bonn - 13 O 126/22 Court: LG Bonn (Germany) Jurisdiction: Germany Relevant Law: Article 82 GDPR Decided: 07.06.2023 Published: Parties: National Case

The Regional Court of Itzehoe (LG Itzehoe) held that the data subject had to accept images of his property being shown on Google Maps and Google Earth

to the Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main (Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, LG). The plaintiff asked the court to order the defendant to cease and desist

pending at the LG XXXX. You are entitled to suspension. The question currently pending as part of the civil proceedings mentioned before the LG XXXX, whether

LG München I - 33 O 5976/22 Court: LG München (Germany) Jurisdiction: Germany Relevant Law: Article 6(1)(b) GDPR Article 6(1)(f) GDPR Article 80(2) GDPR

of their data (connection to LG Kassel GRUR-RS 2022, 30480 para. 18 f.; LG Essen GRUR-RS 2022, 34818 Rn. 72 ff.; see also LG Bielefeld GRUR-RS 2022, 38375)

regime under national law, and the view as expressed in LG Bonn 29 OWi 1/20. In this case, the LG Bonn held that Article 83 GDPR, with a rule of direct association

The regional court of Rostock (LG Rostock) held that tracking cookies can only be placed with the user's active consent. A preset permission that is only

decision of June 3, 1997 - 1 W 8260/95 -, para. 6, juris; On the insolvency code: LG Frankfurt (Oder), decision of September 4, 2006 - 32 T 12/05 -, para. 9, juris

against the controller before the Regional Court Kiel (Landgericht Kiel - LG Kiel) requesting the deletion of the record and the correction of his credit

is available under RIS - 6Ob159 / 20f - Decision text - Justiz (OGH, OLG, LG, BG, OPMS, AUSL) (bka.gv.at) . These findings are not in dispute. 3. Legal

protected by copyright (LG Berlin, ZUM-RD 2014, 105, 107 [juris para. 26]; LG Frankfurt, ZUM 2017, 772, 775 [juris para. 67]; LG Hamburg, NJW-RR 2017, 1392

OLG Cologne, NJW-RR 2019, 1213 m.w. Nachw.; LG Offenburg, judgment of 26 September 2018 - 2 O 310/18-, juris; LG Stuttgart, judgment of 29 August 2019 - 11

deactivated their account. The data subject went to the lower instance court (LG Köln) to order the controller to reactivate their account and to correct the

2020 - 385 C 155/19 (70); LG Hamburg, judgment of 04.09.2020 - 324 S 9/19; AG Hannover, judgment of 09.03.2020 - 531 C 10952/19; LG Frankfurt/M., judgment

decisions are: Landgericht Darmstadt, 13 O 244/19; LG München, 3 O 17493/20, https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=LG_M%C3%BCnchen_-_3_O_17493/20). The VG Regensburg

art. 78 of the Regulation, as well as art. 152 of the Code and 10 of the d. lg. 1 September 2011, n. 150, against this provision, opposition may be proposed

by the plaintiff. The document submitted by the plaintiff (page 141 of the LG file) does not indicate that this is a promise of costs, since the page submitted

OLG Karlsruhe judgment of 29.11.2022 – 12 U 305/21; LG Krefeld, judgment of 6.10.2021 - 2 O 448/20; LG Frankenthal Judgment of 12.1.2021 - 1 HK O 4/19. OLG

Inspektsioon Juurdepääsupiirang kehtib kuni: 02.05.2097 Alus: AvTS § 35 lg 1 p 2,AvTS § 35 lg 1 p 12 IMI - Berlin DPA Yours: nr Ours: {regDateTime} nr {regNumber}

such lawsuits. Occasionally, a value interest of only €500.00 is assumed (LG Bonn, judgment of July 1st, 2021, Az. 15 O 355/20; LAG Berlin-Brandenburg

refer to the judgment of the LG Köln in case 33 O 376/22 for further details. However, the court reversed the decision of the LG Köln with respect to the claim

and it was blocked. The plaintiff requested the Regional Court of Flensburg (LG Flensburg) to order both Instagram and the telemedia service provider to disclose

National Case Number/Name: 9 U 6/19 European Case Law Identifier: Appeal from: LG Magdeburg (Germany) Appeal to: Original Language(s): German Original Source:

Law Identifier: ECLI:AT:OLG0459:2019:00600R00049.19X.0612.000 Appeal from: LG Linz (Austria) 36 Cg 1/18x-16 Appeal to: Not appealed Original Language(s):