Search results

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

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):