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, who initially also acted for the plaintiff. After some time, however, the latter terminated the client relationship. Subsequently, she requested complete data information from her lawyer, including a copy of the relevant personal file, which many clients regard as a prerequisite for clarifying potential compensation in the event of incomplete information.
Lawyer did not comply with the request for information
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. A claim for full data disclosure often includes all relevant data, such as information on the client account and communication by email and WhatsApp. However, this information was missing, which prompted the plaintiff to demand not only complete information, but also compensation for incomplete information.
In addition, the plaintiff claimed damages, which should not be less than 1,000.00 euros. She argued that the lawyer had been in arrears with providing the information for nine months and that his conduct was willful. A long wait for the requested information can lead to financial and psychological burdens for the person entitled to the information, which is why compensation for incomplete information is becoming increasingly important.
Bonn Regional Court emphasizes broad scope of the right to information
The Regional Court of Bonn emphasized that the claim for information asserted by the plaintiff is fundamentally broad and also includes the information from the plaintiff’s client account with the defendant as well as the electronic communication stored about her. Since the defendant lawyer did not provide this information, the court is of the opinion that the right to information has not been fulfilled. In the context of GDPR law, this often leads to questions as to when and to what extent damages are justified in the event of incomplete information.
According to the court, the plaintiff therefore has a claim against the defendant for data disclosure in accordance with Article 15 in conjunction with Article 12 GDPR and for the provision of a copy of the data. However, the legal situation regarding claims for damages in the event of incomplete information remains complex, as the judgment shows.
No lump-sum compensation for incomplete information
However, the ruling is different with regard to the plaintiff’s claim for damages. In the opinion of the regional court, merely waiting for the requested data information does not constitute damage that justifies compensation. According to the court, a claim for damages for incomplete information requires a concrete impairment, which must at least be “noticeable”.
This aspect is particularly important when assessing claims for damages for incomplete information, as it is not sufficient if the person entitled to information only experiences a delay. Rather, it must be possible to prove that concrete damage has occurred, for example in the form of a financial disadvantage or a serious infringement of personal rights. In this case, the Bonn Regional Court denied the existence of such damage.
Ruling sets high requirements for compensation in the event of incomplete information
The ruling of the Bonn Regional Court is based on a fundamentally broad understanding of the right to information and at the same time clarifies the relevance of a concrete loss incurred by the person entitled to information. As a rule, lump-sum compensation for incomplete information is only recognized if the person concerned can prove actual damage. According to the court, the mere refusal or delay in providing information is not sufficient to enforce claims for damages.
This decision makes it clear that high demands are placed on the plaintiff when it comes to the question of compensation for damages in the event of incomplete information. Proof of a tangible impairment is essential, as damages are only granted in exceptional cases. It is therefore important for companies, creative professionals and entrepreneurs who invoke the right to information to carefully examine the potential consequences of incomplete information in advance and seek legal advice if necessary.
Overall, the judgment of the Bonn Regional Court provides a more precise view of the conditions under which compensation for damages can actually be enforced in the event of incomplete information. This clarification is particularly relevant for companies and private individuals who rely on GDPR regulations to demand transparency and protection of their data. Lawyers in the field of data protection law and media law will therefore use the ruling as a guideline to better advise clients on their claims for information and damages.
