Rhineland-Palatinate Regional Labour Court, judgement of 22/08/2024 - Ref.: 5 SLa 66/24
Facts
The plaintiff demanded compensation from her former employer, a nursing home, in the amount of 15,000 euros. After the employment relationship ended, the nursing home inadvertently continued to use an old advertising flyer that still contained the plaintiff's name, her former position and her work telephone number. This flyer was reprinted in a weekly magazine with a circulation of around 78,000 copies and distributed to numerous households in the region.
The plaintiff claimed that she had been approached by several people and had felt compelled to explain and justify her professional situation. She also feared that her new employer might get the impression that she was engaging in unauthorised competitive activity.
At first instance, the Koblenz Labour Court awarded the plaintiff damages in the amount of 3,000 euros. The defendant appealed against this judgement.
Decision of the LAG
The Rhineland-Palatinate Regional Labour Court overturned the judgement of the court of first instance and dismissed the claim in its entirety. A claim for damages did not exist due to a lack of compensable damages.
Reason
The plaintiff based her claim on Art. 82 para. 1 GDPR on the one hand and on Section 823 para. 1 BGB in conjunction with the violation of the general right of personality under Art. 2 para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 1 para. 1 GG. V. m. Art. 1 para. 1 GG.
The court clarified that there had been a breach of data protection regulations. The publication of the plaintiff's personal data after termination of the employment relationship was unlawful and constituted a breach of the GDPR. Nevertheless, the mandatory requirement of material or immaterial damage was not met.
Art. 82 para. 1 GDPR presupposes that the data subject has actually suffered damage as a result of the data protection breach. The claim for damages has a compensatory function; in particular in the case of non-material damage, there must be an actual impairment suffered that can be compensated by money.
According to the case law of the ECJ and the BAG, the requirements for the existence of non-material damage should not be overstretched. A „loss of control“ over personal data could also be sufficient in principle. Nevertheless, the data subject bears the burden of presentation and proof for the existence of such damage.
In the opinion of the court, the plaintiff's submission did not fulfil these requirements. The LAG stated in unusually clear language that neither a concrete nor a comprehensible personal or psychological impairment was recognisable. Objectively, the plaintiff did not have to seriously fear losing her new job. It was obviously an oversight that could be easily clarified.
Insofar as the plaintiff had argued that she had been approached by eleven people from her circle of friends and acquaintances as well as by an employee of her new employer, the Chamber could not recognise any relevant immaterial impairment in this. Furthermore, there was no risk of being contacted by unknown third parties, as the flyer did not contain a photo, private address or private telephone number.
Conclusion
The ruling of the Rhineland-Palatinate Regional Labour Court clearly illustrates the requirements it places on the judicial enforcement of claims for damages. A mere violation of the law - even in data protection law - is not automatically sufficient for a claim for monetary compensation. Rather, what is required is concretely verifiable material or immaterial damage.
At the same time, the court emphasises that European tort law does not have a punitive or deterrent character, as is known from US law, for example. Anyone who has not suffered any actual damage cannot claim damages. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the ECJ does not set the threshold for non-material damage high and continues to attach great importance to the significance of personal data in the European legal system.
