Search results

evaluations and thus no personal data of users in Germany are transmitted to the USA, unless the processor (i.e. Flexperto GmbH) had previously concluded a

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

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

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

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

15 Insofar as the defendant cites the judgment of the Regional Court of Munich I of 02.09.2021, 23 O 10931/20, the reasons for the decision speak precisely

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

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: Revision

extinguished. The defendant issued the first instance with Annexes I 13, I 14 and I 15 (page 648 ff. of the case) already provide information on the amount

pointed out the error to the sender ("I also pissed her off that it wasn't possible", "She apologized very nicely", "I don't know more" , "Are you looking

The Regional Court of Munich held that, while Article 82 GDPR generally allows for compensation for non-material damage caused by a data breach, the mere

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

at the Munich I Regional Court. In a decision dated September 20th, 2022, the Munich I Regional Court referred the legal dispute to the Munich District

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 any

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

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 - 31

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

(cf. OLG Munich, decision of 22.08.2019 - 18 U 1310/19, BeckRS 2019, 26477 marginal no. 22; OLG Munich, 07.01.2020 - 18 U 2346/19; see also LG Hamburg,

(also OLG Munich reference decision of November 24th, 2021 - 14 U 6205/21, BeckRS 2021, 40311 para. 58; OLG Hamm, decision of November 15th, 2021 - I-20 U 269

given any reason for this. The Munich Regional Court rightly speaks of a “hollowing economization” of data (LG Munich I. loc. cit., p. 38). Ultimately

Lower court: LG Munich I, final judgment of February 26, 2021 – 41 O 7178/20 Findings: BeckRS 2022, 16827 ZD 2022, 563 LSK 2022, 16827 tenor I. Upon the defendant's

juris; OLG Munich, decision of 17 June 2018 - 15 W 86/18 -, juris; OLG Munich, decision of 17 June 2018 - 15 W 86/18 -, juris; OLG Munich, decision of

2021 (see point I.6), ./33 - statement of MB from 05/04/2021 (see point I.7), ./34 - Statement of the BF1 from 05/05/2021 (see Point I.8), ./35 - Opinion

U 206/20 -, juris para. 59 ff.; LG Düsseldorf, judgment of October 28, 2021 - 16 O 128/20 -, juris para. 37; LG Munich I, judgment of December 9, 2021 -

damage as a result (cf. LG Munich I, judgment of December 9th, 2021 - 31 O 16606/20, GRUR-RS 2021, 41707). B. The lawsuit is unfounded t.I. The plaintiff has

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

23a (2017 Munich). See e.g.: OLG Dresden, decision dated 12.9.2022 – 4 U 1327/22; OLG Nürnberg, decision dated 21.11.2022 – 8 U 1621/22; LG Frankfurt (Oder)

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

below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details. Court: LG Ravensburg 2nd Civil Chamber Decision

the file. Reasons for decision The action is admissible, but unfounded. I. The LG Frankfurt a.M. has international and local jurisdiction. This is not in

decision below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details. I. With the lawsuit, the plaintiff has requested

jameda.de). BGH, judgment of December 13, 2022 - VI ZR 54/21 - OLG Munich LG Munich I - 2 - The VI Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice has on the

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

issue is noted above all if navigation is carried out domestically, i.e. in Germany, takes place. In addition, there is a domestic connection in the provision

asserted by the plaintiff are to be assessed according to German law. This follows from Article 3(1) Rome I Regulation in conjunction with the choice of law in

The Administrative Court Munich rejected a request for interim relief directed against the collection and storing of Covid-19 test certificates by a school

also the GDPR (LG Munich I, judgment from December 9th, 2021, Az.: 31 0 16606/20; LG Essen, judgment of November 10th, 2022 - 6 0 1 1 1/22; LG Regensburg,

the defendant offers to German users. There are conditions of use and community standards to regulate the use; by clicking the "I agree" button on May 21

addresses and e-mail addresses of the association's members directly to them, i.e. without the involvement of a trustee. These data were necessary in preparation

below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details. Tenor I. The plaintiff's appeal against the

DS-GVO/BDSG, 3rd ed 2020, Art. 82 para. 18b with further references; critical LG Munich I v. 2.9.2 021 - 23 O 10931/20, GRUR-RS 2021, 33318) and a threatening influence

here is culpability in the sense of German legal terminology and not responsibility under data protection law (LG Mainz, judgment of November 12, 2021

substantially diverged from the prevailing German case law at the time (see OLG Köln - 20 U 295/21, OLG Dresden - 4 U 1905/21, LG Krefeld - 2 O 448/20). Share blogs

the warning sign. I. Without success, the plaintiff initially asserts a claim for injunction under Sections 280 (1), 241 (2) of the German Civil Code (BGB)

79 paragraph 17.; Herbricht, jurisPRITR/2020; LG Frankfurt, B.v. 15.10.2020 - 2-03 O 356/20 - juris LS; LG Darmstadt, U.v. 26.5.2020 - 13 O 244/19 - juris

April 2012 - I ZB 80/11, Federal Court of Justice Gazette 195, 257 marginal no. 8 "Everything can be improved"; and of 5 December 2012 - I ZB 48/12, NJW-RR