LAG Rhineland-Palatinate, 22/08/2024, Ref. no.: 5 SLa 66/24
The facts:
The plaintiff is demanding 15,000 euros in damages from her former employer, a nursing home. After her employment was terminated, the home inadvertently reused an old advertising flyer containing the plaintiff's name, her previous position, and her work telephone number. This flyer was subsequently reprinted in a weekly magazine with a circulation of 78,000 copies, which was distributed to numerous households in the local community. In her proceedings before the labour court , the plaintiff argued that she had been approached by numerous people, making her feel obliged to explain and justify herself. She also feared that her new employer might get the impression that she was engaging in prohibited competitive activity. In the first instance, the Koblenz Labour Court awarded the plaintiff 3,000 euros in damages. The defendant subsequently appealed the judgement.
The decision of the LAG: No claim due to lack of damage.
The plaintiff based her claim, on the one hand, on the EU General Data Protection Regulation (Article 82(1) GDPR) and, on the other, on Section 823(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB) in conjunction with the violation of the general right of personality under Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Basic Law (GG ). However, contrary to the plaintiff's view, the court found that although a violation of those rights had occurred, 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 immaterial damage due to a violation of the General Data Protection Regulation. In this case, the publication of the flyer containing the plaintiff's personal data after the end of the employment relationship did constitute a violation of the GDPR. However, the problematic question was whether the plaintiff also suffered damage. The claim for damages has a compensatory function , particularly in the case of immaterial damage, as it is intended to enable monetary compensation based on Art. 82 I GDPR. According to the case law of the ECJ and the BAG, the hurdle for compensable damage should not be too high; a "loss of control" that could be caused by a violation of the protection of personal data is sufficient. Nevertheless, the injured party must prove that immaterial damage has occurred. However, the requirements for this must not be too high, so as not to undermine the substantive legal requirements regarding the broad definition of damages. According to the plaintiff's submissions, this requirement could by no means be upheld by the court. With the most unequivocal language, the court gave the plaintiff a lesson and dismissed her claim.
The plaintiff objectively could not have expected to lose her job with the new employer. It was "obviously" an oversight that could have been resolved immediately using simple means. Furthermore, the judgment states, "As far as the plaintiff alleges that she was approached by eleven people in her circle of friends and acquaintances, as well as by an employee of the new employer, regarding her name being mentioned in the flyer at the beginning of April 2023, the Chamber is unable to even begin to discern the abstractly alleged "personal/psychological impairment ." Furthermore, there was no risk of being approached by other unknown persons, as the flyer contained neither photos nor a private address or telephone number.
Conclusion:
A ruling in which the Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Labour Court (LAG) clearly states which requirements it considers necessary to enforce a claim in court. This completely unfounded assertion clearly fails to convince the court. It is particularly noteworthy that even if legal rights are violated, this does not automatically justify a claim for damages. Someone who has not suffered any demonstrable damage cannot simply demand payment of money. This is particularly true given that, in this case, according to the (European) legislator, civil law should not serve a deterrent or punitive function, as is common in countries such as the USA. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the ECJ does not set the threshold for non-material damages high and thus attaches great importance to the significance of personal data .
