Hig­her Labour Court of Sax­o­ny on the defen­se against requests for infor­ma­ti­on in accordance with Artic­le 15 GDPR

After recent legal rulings of the Fede­ral Supre­me Court have drawn broad boun­da­ries for claims based on Artic­le 15 GDPR, the Hig­her Labour Court of Sax­o­ny has endea­vor­ed in its judgment of 17 Febru­ary 2021 (Ref. 2 Sa 63/20) (PDF only in Ger­man) to set limits to the claims. Such claims are now incre­asing­ly beco­ming the sub­ject of labour court dis­pu­tes. It is the­r­e­fo­re wort­hwhile for com­pa­nies to address the Court’s reaso­ning in order to be able to fend off unju­s­ti­fied claims for infor­ma­ti­on in the future.

Sta­te of affairs

An employee was in dis­pu­te with his for­mer employ­er about bonu­ses, vaca­ti­on com­pen­sa­ti­on and com­pen­sa­ti­on for weekend work. In addi­ti­on, the employee asser­ted a cla­im for infor­ma­ti­on pur­su­ant to Artic­le 15 GDPR, as has fre­quent­ly been the case recent­ly in labour court pro­cee­dings, in order to obtain infor­ma­ti­on about all per­so­nal per­for­mance and conduct-related data stored by his for­mer employ­er in order to enforce his claims.

Mate­ri­al con­side­ra­ti­ons of the court

The Court con­side­red per­for­mance and conduct-related data of an employee to be per­so­nal data, to which a cla­im based on Artic­le 15 GDPR can also rela­te. Howe­ver, it denied the cla­im in this case, citing four reasons.

First­ly, fol­lo­wing the legal rulings of the Fede­ral Labour Court (BAG) (only in Ger­man), the cla­im fails, accor­ding to the Court, due to a lack of deter­mi­nacy. Pur­su­ant to § 253(2)2 of the Civil Pro­ce­du­re Code (only in Ger­man), the plain­ti­ff must file a spe­ci­fic cla­im, sta­ting the sub­ject of the cla­im and the grounds on which it is based. The plaintiff’s appli­ca­ti­on does not do this, sin­ce it is exhaus­ted, wit­hout jus­ti­fi­ca­ti­on, in the mere repro­duc­tion of the wor­ding of the law and lacks a con­cre­te state­ment of the facts. Unfort­u­na­te­ly, the ruling lacks any con­cre­te expl­ana­ti­ons as to what requi­re­ments are to be pla­ced on a cor­re­spon­ding request for information. 

Moreo­ver, the Court argues that the cla­im for infor­ma­ti­on is also con­tra­dic­ted by the inap­pro­pria­te pur­po­se pur­sued by the plain­ti­ff with it. The wor­ding of Artic­le 15 GDPR does not pro­vi­de for a rest­ric­tion of the right to infor­ma­ti­on to the pur­su­it of spe­ci­fic pur­po­ses. Howe­ver, the plain­ti­ff is attemp­ting to achie­ve a rever­sal of the bur­den of pro­of and expl­ana­ti­on through the right to infor­ma­ti­on based on Artic­le 15 GDPR. Yet, when clai­ming com­pen­sa­ti­on for over­ti­me, it is incum­bent upon the employee to sta­te the ext­ent to which he has work­ed over­ti­me. Artic­le 15 GDPR is not a tool for deter­mi­ning a sta­te of affairs that would estab­lish a cla­im. In this respect, in the view of the court, the cla­im also fails on the grounds of inappropriateness.

In accordance with Con­side­ra­ti­on 63, Sen­tence 7 of the GDPR (only in Ger­man), a con­trol­ler pro­ces­sing a lar­ge amount of infor­ma­ti­on about a data sub­ject may requi­re the data sub­ject to spe­ci­fy the infor­ma­ti­on to which his or her request for infor­ma­ti­on rela­tes. The plain­ti­ff did not com­ply with the cor­re­spon­ding repea­ted request of the defen­dant. In this respect, the defen­dant was also entit­led to refu­se to pro­vi­de the infor­ma­ti­on for this reason.

Final­ly, the request was exces­si­ve. Pur­su­ant to Artic­le 12(5), Sen­tence 1 GDPR, the con­trol­ler may refu­se to act on such requests. It is note­wor­t­hy that the Hig­her Regio­nal Court of Sax­o­ny does not refer to the scope of the reques­ted infor­ma­ti­on, but again to an inap­pro­pria­te pur­po­se. The request was to be con­side­red exces­si­ve becau­se it was not made in accordance with the pur­po­se of the GDPR, but, inap­pro­pria­te­ly, in con­nec­tion with mone­ta­ry claims.

Our assess­ment – rele­van­ce of the ruling for companies

The Hig­her Regio­nal Court of Sax­o­ny limits claims based on Artic­le 15 GDPR and endea­vors to put a stop to their inap­pro­pria­te use. From a company’s point of view, this is to be wel­co­med, as the inap­pro­pria­te use of requests for infor­ma­ti­on can other­wi­se signi­fi­cant­ly shift exis­ting rules on the bur­den of expl­ana­ti­on and pro­of. At the same time, the Hig­her Regio­nal Court of Sax­o­ny demons­tra­tes the argu­men­ta­ti­on that can be used to defend against unju­s­ti­fied requests for infor­ma­ti­on. Howe­ver, it remains to be seen whe­ther the Court’s reaso­ning will hold up in fur­ther legal rulings.


Stay up-to-date

We use your email address exclusively for sending our newsletter. You have the right to revoke your consent at any time with effect for the future. For further information, please refer to our privacy policy.