Search results

accordance with the Hamburg Transparency Act (§ 3 (1) No. 15 HmbTG). The plaintiff is employed by the University Medical Center in Hamburg, a corporation under

VG Hamburg held that the processing of health data in a Cancer Registry was unlawful. Although the processing's nature fit the exceptions of Article 9(2)(h)-(j)

with the Administrative Court of Hamburg (Verwaltungsgericht Hamburg, VG Hamburg) The controller is the University of Hamburg, a legal entity under public

5 Bf 279/17, juris Rn 63 ff; VG Schwerin, judgment of March 16, 2021 - 1 A 1254/20 SN Rn 65 ff; Administrative Court - VG Ansbach, judgment of March 16

(cf. VG Berlin, order of November20.2019 - VG L33 A467.19 -, legal marginal no. with14 further references; VG Berlin, order of July 20.2020 - VG 23 L 272/20

Procedure first VG Hamburg 17th Chamber, July 30, 2020, Az: 17 E 2756/20, decision tenor The respondent's complaint against the decision of the Hamburg Administrative

self-governing bodies is indeed obvious (see VG Hamburg, decision of 3 December 2019 - 5 E 5549/19 -, juris nr. 6; VG Würzburg, decision of 6 May 2004 - W 6

Karg op. Uv February 12, 2015 - OVG 12 B 13/12 - NVwZ-RR 2015, 801, 802); VG Hamburg, U.v. February 25, 2004 - 7 K 1422/03 - juris Rn. 57; Reidt / Schiller

February 25, 1969 - IC 65.67 -, juris Rn. 40; see also VG Hamburg, judgment of February 16, 1999 - 10 VG 1745/98 -, juris Rn. 29. Insofar as the plaintiff requests

171 cited from VG Mainz judgment. December 17, 2020 - 1 K 778 / 19.MZ, BeckRS 2020, 41220, para. 42, which leaves the question open; VG Berlin ruling v

München waived this lawsuit. Subsequently the complainant appealed with the VG München, requesting to prohibit the respondent from publishing the information

examination of the asserted claim is the focus of the administrative action. (OVG Hamburg, judgement of 08.02.2018,3 Bf 107/17). The subsequent decision - also with

10 A 10613/20 -, juris Rn. 31 ff .; VG Ansbach, judgment of August 8, 2019 - AN 14. K 19.00272 -, juris Rn 42 ff .; VG Wiesbaden, judgment of June 7, 2021

https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=LG_M%C3%BCnchen_-_3_O_17493/20). The VG Regensburg (RN 9 K 19.1061 - VG Regensburg - RN 9 K 19.1061) takes another stance. It decided

recourse (cf. Bay. VGH, decision of May 5, 2014 - 4 C 14.449 -, para. 17; OVG Hamburg, Resolution of August 14, 2000 - 3 So 54/00 -, paragraph 6; each juris)

adjudicating court (cf. VG Berlin, judgments of April 20, 2021 - VG 16 K 3/21, n.v.; of December 12, 2019 - VG 27 K 292.15; March 22, 2012 - VG 20 K 123.10) it

no. 7; in this direction: OVG Hamburg, judgment of 7 October 2019 - 5 Bf 279/17, BeckRS 2019, 36126 marginal no. 63; VG Mainz, judgment of 16 January 2020

plaintiff under Article 15(3) GDPR. The Administrative Court of Schwerin (VG Schwerin) first finds that the expert opinion is personal data under Article

with the Administrative Court of Karlsruhe (Verwaltungsgericht Karlsruhe - VG Karlsruhe). The office replied that they believed that such a request might

platform, provision of information, Consumer Information Act lower court: VG Regensburg, decision of 04.05.2020 - RO 5 S 20.541 Place of discovery: BeckRS