- Recent rulings by German higher regional courts set new standards for claims for damages in the event of GDPR violations
- Article 82 GDPR grants anyone who is harmed the right to compensation.
- ECJ ruling confirms that fear of data misuse can give rise to non-material damage.
- The OLG Hamm requires concrete proof of the damage for claims for damages.
- Dresden Higher Regional Court confirms the need to demonstrate concrete damages and not just GDPR violations
- Decisions of other OLGs show a restrictive attitude towards claims for damages.
- Companies need to rethink compliance strategies in order to minimize liability risks.
Introduction:
As a lawyer who deals intensively with the facets of data protection law, I would like to highlight a significant development in this area today. Recent rulings by various higher regional courts in Germany have set new standards for the assertion of claims for damages in the event of violations of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). These judgments are particularly relevant as they concern the interpretation and application of Article 82 GDPR, which regulates liability and rights to compensation.
Article 82 GDPR and the ECJ ruling:
Article 82 GDPR provides that any person who suffers material or non-material damage as a result of a breach of the Regulation is entitled to compensation from the controller or processor. In its ruling of December 14, 2023 (C-340/21), the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that even the fear of future data misuse can give rise to a non-material claim for damages. This ruling has far-reaching implications for the liability risks of companies and authorities.
OLG Hamm: Clear line for claims for damages
In its decisions, the Hamm Higher Regional Court has drawn a clear line regarding claims for damages in the event of violations of the GDPR. The judges emphasized that concrete proof of damage is essential for the assertion of claims for damages. They clarified that a mere breach of the GDPR does not automatically lead to claims for damages. Rather, the plaintiff must demonstrate and prove actual damage. This approach of the Higher Regional Court of Hamm aims to prevent an inflationary assertion of claims for damages without a substantiated basis and thus represents an important change of course in data protection law.
OLG Dresden: Confirmation of the necessity of concrete damage
The Dresden Higher Regional Court agreed with the opinion of the Hamm Higher Regional Court and also emphasized the importance of concrete proof of damage. In its rulings, the court rejected claims for damages that were based solely on an alleged loss of control without any evidence of actual damage. This decision underlines the need for plaintiffs to demonstrate in detail not only a GDPR infringement, but also the specific damages resulting from it. The OLG Dresden thus contributes to clarity and predictability in the application of the GDPR and prevents the claim for damages from being overstretched.
Further OLG rulings and their significance
In addition to the Higher Regional Court of Hamm and the Higher Regional Court of Dresden, the Higher Regional Court of Cologne and the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart have also ruled in a similar manner. These rulings form a consistent body of case law indicating that German courts are taking a more restrictive stance towards claims for damages for GDPR infringements. They emphasize the need for concrete proof of damage and thus prevent an expansion of the liability risks for companies and authorities that could result from an overly broad interpretation of Article 82 GDPR.
Conclusion: Practical implications for legal practice
The latest decisions of the German courts signal an important development in data protection law, which is of great significance for both companies and data protection officers. They make it clear that not every breach of the GDPR automatically leads to claims for damages. Rather, a differentiated approach is required that takes into account both the rights of the data subjects and the interests of the data processing bodies.
In legal practice, this means that when advising clients affected by a data breach, particular attention must be paid to proving concrete damage. This requires careful analysis and documentation of the facts. Similarly, companies that work with personal data need to rethink their compliance strategies and ensure that they implement effective measures to minimize risk and protect data.
In conclusion, these rulings send a clear message: Careful compliance with the GDPR and an appropriate risk assessment are essential to minimize potential liability risks. In this dynamic area of law, it is crucial to stay up to date and to keep an eye on developing case law. As a lawyer specializing in data protection law, I am ready to advise and support you in these complex issues.
