The starting point of a legal dispute before the Regional Court of Bonn (judgment of July 1, 2021, A.Z.: 15 O 372/20) was a traffic accident. The injured party commissioned a lawyer for the necessary claims settlement. This lawyer initially also acted for the plaintiff. After some time, however, she terminated the client relationship. She subsequently demanded complete information from her lawyer, including a copy of the relevant case file.
Appointed lawyer did not comply with request for information
However, the lawyer subsequently did not provide the plaintiff with any corresponding information. The plaintiff then asserted her right to information in accordance with Art. 15 GDPR. The claim for data disclosure had not been fulfilled, in particular because information on the client account and communication by email and WhatsApp was missing.
In addition, the plaintiff claimed damages, which should not be less than EUR 1,000.00. Finally, the defendant had been in default with the provision of information for nine months. Furthermore, his conduct was to be assessed as willful.
Bonn Regional Court emphasizes broad scope of the right to information
In the opinion of the Regional Court of Bonn, the claim for information asserted by the plaintiff is broad in principle: It also includes the information from the plaintiff’s client account with the defendant and the electronic communication stored about the plaintiff.
As the defendant lawyer did not provide this information, the claim has not been fulfilled. In the opinion of the court, the plaintiff therefore has a claim against the defendant for data disclosure pursuant to Article 15 in conjunction with Article 12 GDPR and for the provision of a copy of the data.
No lump-sum compensation for incomplete information
However, the ruling is different with regard to the plaintiff’s claim for damages: According to the court, merely waiting for the requested data information does not constitute damage. The assertion of non-material damages also requires an impairment that must at least be “noticeable”.
Based on these principles, the Regional Court concludes that there is no entitlement to compensation for merely delayed or incomplete provision of information in accordance with Art. 82, 15 GDPR. With this ruling, the court is based on a fundamentally broad understanding of the right to information and at the same time clarifies the relevance of a concrete damage incurred by the person entitled to information.