+++ FEDERAL COURT OF JUSTICE: CLAIMS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER NATIONAL LAW POSSIBLE FOR GDPR INFRINGEMENTS +++
The Federal Court of Justice has ruled that a claim for injunctive relief under national law against repeated transfer of personal data in violation of the GDPR cannot, as a general rule, be dismissed on the grounds that the GDPR exhaustively governs the legal consequences of data protection violations. The claimant had placed an order with an online shop whose website integrated third-party services in such a way that, when the website was accessed, the IP address was transmitted to external servers, among other data. The claimant sought to prohibit such transfers without his prior consent. In the court's view, the GDPR does not prevent Member States from providing for claims for injunctive relief under national law. In the case of unlawful data processing, claims under Sections 823 and 1004 of the German Civil Code would be particularly relevant. The Federal Court of Justice therefore overturned the appellate court's decision and remanded the case to the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main, which must now examine the additional requirements for a claim for injunctive relief.
To the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice (dated 21 July 2026, VI ZR 144/23, in German)
+++ FEDERAL COURT OF JUSTICE: REFERRAL TO THE ECJ ON THE HOUSEHOLD EXEMPTION +++
The Federal Court of Justice has referred questions concerning the so-called household exemption under Article 2(2)(c) GDPR to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in two proceedings. In the first case, a private individual had forwarded confidential chat messages from a former friend to people in her professional environment; the data subject's employment was subsequently terminated. The second case concerned video surveillance in a family's shared kitchen and the disclosure of recordings to the police. In particular, the ECJ is being asked to clarify whether, when determining whether processing constitutes a purely personal or household activity, the purpose pursued by the processing and the fundamental rights interests involved must be taken into account. It is also being asked to clarify whether a professional connection on the part of the data subject or the recipient of the data can preclude application of the household exemption. In the video surveillance proceedings, the Federal Court of Justice additionally asks about the significance of the information obligations under Article 13 GDPR and of unlawful data collection for the lawfulness of subsequent processing.
To the press release of the Federal Court of Justice (dated 17 September 2026, I ZR 256/25 and I ZR 289/25, in German)
+++ HIGHER LABOUR COURT OF BADEN-WÜRTTEMBERG: SALARY DATA FROM GROSS PAYROLL LISTS MAY BE ADMISSIBLE IN INDIVIDUAL PROCEEDINGS +++
The Higher Labour Court of Baden-Württemberg has ruled on the admissibility of salary data in litigation concerning gender-based pay discrimination where a works council member had obtained the data from a gross payroll list accessible to the works council. The claimant introduced the compensation of a top earner as a comparator in her individual proceedings. In the court's view, she was permitted to use the salary data in the court proceedings. The processing was necessary for the exercise of her rights in the employment relationship and for the conduct of the judicial proceedings (Section 26(1) of the Federal Data Protection Act in conjunction with Article 6(1)(c), (3) and (4) GDPR). Furthermore, the fact that the works council is only permitted to inspect gross payroll lists and does not receive them for its own use (Section 80(2) of the Works Constitution Act) does not automatically preclude the use of information obtained from them in individual litigation. In particular, an exclusion of submissions or evidence does not follow solely from the fact that the salary data may have been obtained in breach of data protection requirements. The court thus follows the principles established by the ECJ on the use of personal data in judicial proceedings (see Privacy Ticker June 2026).
To the judgment of the Higher Labour Court of Baden-Württemberg (dated 18 August 2026, 2 Sa 14/24, in German)
+++ ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF OSNABRÜCK: EVEN EXCESSIVE ACCESS REQUESTS MUST NOT BE LEFT UNANSWERED +++
The Administrative Court of Osnabrück has determined that even a request for information that may be excessive must be processed within the statutory one-month time limit. A citizen had once again requested information from a public authority under Article 15 GDPR. The authority considered the request to be repetitive and an abuse of the law, but failed to respond within one month. In the court’s opinion, where a request is manifestly unfounded or excessive, the controller may, under Article 12(5) GDPR, charge a reasonable fee or refuse to process the request. However, such a refusal does not relieve the controller of the obligation under Article 12(4) GDPR to inform the data subject, within one month at the latest, of the decision not to act, the reasons for it, and the available avenues for complaint and legal redress.
To the court order of the Administrative Court of Osnabrück (dated 19 August 2026, 7 A 170/24, in German)
