LAG Rhineland-Palatinate, 22 August 2024, Ref.: 5 SLa 66/24
The facts of the case:
The plaintiff is claiming damages of 15 thousand euros from her former employer, a nursing home for the elderly. After the employment relationship was terminated, the residence had inadvertently continued to use an old advertising flyer on which the plaintiff's name and her former professional position as well as her work telephone number were stated. That flyer was subsequently printed in a weekly magazine, which was distributed to numerous households in the local community with a circulation of 78 thousand copies. In the proceedings she brought before the labour court, the plaintiff argued that, She was approached by numerous people and felt that she had to explain and justify herself. She also feared that her new employer might get the impression that she was engaging in prohibited competitive behaviour. At first instance, the Koblenz Labour Court awarded the plaintiff damages for pain and suffering in the amount of 3,000 euros. The defendant then lodged an appeal against the judgement.
The decision of the LAG: No claim due to lack of damage.
The plaintiff had based her claim on the one hand on the EU General Data Protection Regulation based (Art. 82 I GDPR) on the other hand on §823 I BGB in connection with violation of the general right of personality Art. 2 I in conjunction with Art. 1 I GG. However, contrary to the plaintiff's view, the court found that although there had been a violation of those rights, the plaintiff had nevertheless not suffered any compensable damage.
The reason:
A mandatory requirement of Art. 82 I GDPR is that a person suffers material or non-material damage due to a breach of the General Data Protection Regulation. In the present case, the publication of the flyer with the plaintiff's personal data after the end of the employment relationship did indeed constitute a breach of the GDPR. However, the question of whether the plaintiff also suffered damage was problematic. The claim for damages is particularly relevant in the case of non-material damage, a balancing functionas this is intended to enable monetary compensation based on Art. 82 I GDPR. According to the case law of the European Court of Justice and the Federal Labour Court, the hurdle for compensable damage should not be too high; a "Loss of control" which could be caused by a breach of the protection of personal data. Nevertheless, the injured party must prove that non-material damage has occurred. However, the requirements for this must not be too high in order not to undermine the substantive law requirements for the breadth of the concept of damage. This requirement could by no means be confirmed by the court according to the plaintiff's submission. With the clearest choice of words, the court gave the plaintiff a lesson and dismissed her claim.
The plaintiff did not objectively have to expect that she would lose her job with the new employer. It was a matter of "apparent" was an oversight that could have been cleared up immediately by simple means. In addition, the judgement states verbatim "Insofar as the plaintiff submits that she was approached by a total of eleven people in her circle of friends and acquaintances and by an employee of the new employer at the beginning of April 2023 about her name being mentioned in the flyer, the Chamber is unable to substantiate the abstractly alleged "personal/psychological impairment". not even remotely recognisable". Furthermore, there was no risk of being approached by other unknown persons, as neither photos nor a private address or telephone number were given in the flyer.
Conclusion:
A judgement in which the Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Labour Court states very clearly which requirements it considers necessary in order to enforce a claim in court. The court is clearly not convinced by a claim that is completely unfounded. It is particularly noteworthy that even if there is a violation of legal interests, this does not immediately justify a claim for damages. Someone who suffers no demonstrable damage cannot simply demand a monetary payment. Especially since in this case according to the (European) legislator, civil law should not fulfil a deterrent or punitive function, as is the case in countries such as the USA. Nonetheless, it should be noted here that the ECJ does not set the threshold for immaterial damage high and therefore does not recognise the importance of personal data. attaches great importance to.
