VG Schwerin - 1 A 1343/19 SN
|VG Schwerin - 1 A 1343/19 SN|
|Court:||VG Schwerin (Germany)|
[ Art 2 EUV 2016/679]
[ Art 4 EUV 2016/679]
[ Art 15 Abs 1 EUV 2016/679]
[ Art 15 Abs 3 EUV 2016/679]
[ Art 15 Abs 4 EUV 2016/679]
[ Art 58 Abs 2 EUV 2016/679]
[ Art 12 EUV 2016/679]
[ § 2 UrhG]
[ § 17 UrhG]
[ § 19a UrhG]
[ § 31 UrhG]
|National Case Number/Name:||1 A 1343/19 SN|
|European Case Law Identifier:||ECLI:DE:VGSCHWE:2021:0429.1A1343.19.00|
|Appeal to:||Appealed - Confirmed|
|Original Source:||landesrecht-mv.de (in German)|
|Initial Contributor:||Lejla Rizvanovik|
Sections 15, Paragraph 2, No. 2, 19 a UrhG do not preclude disclosure because it does not affect the right to make them publicly available, since the expert opinion should only be made known to the party invited.
A property owner made an access request with an expert office, which refused to provide a real estate evidence preservation report, claiming that it has no personal data within.
Art. 15 para. 3 GDPR includes the issuing of a complete copy of such an opinion to the owner affected by data protection law
The court held, that handing over a complete copy (Art. 15 Para. 3 GDPR) of a real estate evidence preservation report according to Art. 58 Para. 2 Letter c GDPR to the owner of an examined object is lawful.
According to Art. 4 Nr. 1 GDPR, it is justified to regard the expert opinion at issue here as a personal data. It is not a mere factual date, as the plaintiff thinks.
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details.