News
Is a violation of a GDPR rule at the same time a violation of competition law?
According to the Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Higher Regional Court Hamburg) violations of data protection rules can also mean a violation of German competition law and can therefore be actionable by competitors in accordance with the German Unfair Competition Act (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb).
In a judgement from 25.10.2018, the Oberlandesgericht Hamburg concluded, that violations of the GDPR are principally actionable by competitors. However, this only applies, if the violated GDPR rule’s additional purpose is also to protect market behavior.
The competitor’s right of action
With its decision, the Court affirms the competitor’s right of action in accordance with German unfair competition law in regard of the Data Protection Directive as well as in regard of the GDPR. The Court states that the Data Protection Directive obviously does not contain an exhaustive sanctionative system that prohibits actions against data protection violations according to civil law. Although the Data Protection Directive aimed at full harmonization of data protection law within the European Union, the Directive does not contain an exhaustive system of remedies.
With a view to the GDPR, the Court ruled that the GDPR, like the Data Protection Directive, does not contain an exhaustive sanctionative system that excludes competitors’ actions in accordance with competition law.
In the Court’s opinion, the provisions of the GDPR do not limit civil actions against GDPR violations to the data subject whose personal data was processed by the controller. According to the judges, the GDPR only defines a minimum level of remedies and is open to other remedies and sanctions that are not explicitly regulated within the GDPR.
The Landgericht Würzburg (District Court Würzburg) arrived at the same conclusion in its court decision from 13.09.2018. However, the District Court did not provide any legal opinion for the conclusion.
In another case from 07.08.2018, the Landgericht Bochum (District Court Bochum) held a different view. Here the Court was of the opinion that the provisions in Artt. 77 to 84 GDPR have to be seen as an exhaustive rule that conclusively determines the entitled categories of possible claimants. Therefore, actions beyond those provisions by a competitor are not possible, because with the provisions in the GDPR the European legislator expressed his intention not to extend the categories of possible claimants.
The Landgericht Wiesbaden (District Court Wiesbaden) comes to the same conclusion, adding in its decision from 05.11.2018 that because of the exhaustive provisions in Artt. 77 to 84 GDPR there is no gap in legal protection that needs to be closed by competition law.
Additional purpose of GDPR rule must be to protect market behavior
The Oberlandesgericht Hamburg also ruled that violations of the GDPR do not necessarily result in an injunctive relief in accordance with competition law. The question whether an injunctive relief is justified, depends on the violated GDPR rule. If the rule also has the purpose to protect market behavior, than a competitor’s injunctive relief is justified. This has to be legally examined on a case-by-case basis.
Summary
In Germany the discussion, whether competitors can prosecute data protection violations remains an open discussion. With the decision of the Oberlandesgericht Hamburg, there is now one Higher Regional Court that allows claims with regard to competition law. However, this ruling is not binding to other courts in Germany and remains in discussion until the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Supreme Court) delivers a final judgement.
Article provided by: Jens Eckhardt & Nils Steffen (Derra, Meyer & Partner Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB)
Discover more about the Cloud Privacy Check(CPC) / Data Privacy Compliance(DPC) project
Director CPC project: Dr. Tobias Höllwarth, tobias.hoellwarth@eurocloud.org
News Archiv
- Alle zeigen
- Dezember 2024
- November 2024
- Oktober 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- Juli 2024
- Juni 2024
- Mai 2024
- April 2024
- März 2024
- Februar 2024
- Jänner 2024
- Dezember 2023
- November 2023
- Oktober 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- Juli 2023
- Juni 2023
- Mai 2023
- April 2023
- März 2023
- Februar 2023
- Jänner 2023
- Dezember 2022
- November 2022
- Oktober 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- Juli 2022
- Mai 2022
- April 2022
- März 2022
- Februar 2022
- November 2021
- September 2021
- Juli 2021
- Mai 2021
- April 2021
- Dezember 2020
- November 2020
- Oktober 2020
- Juni 2020
- März 2020
- Dezember 2019
- Oktober 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- Juli 2019
- Juni 2019
- Mai 2019
- April 2019
- März 2019
- Februar 2019
- Jänner 2019
- Dezember 2018
- November 2018
- Oktober 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- Juli 2018
- Juni 2018
- Mai 2018
- April 2018
- März 2018
- Februar 2018
- Dezember 2017
- November 2017
- Oktober 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- Juli 2017
- Juni 2017
- Mai 2017
- April 2017
- März 2017
- Februar 2017
- November 2016
- Oktober 2016
- September 2016
- Juli 2016
- Juni 2016
- Mai 2016
- April 2016
- März 2016
- Februar 2016
- Jänner 2016
- Dezember 2015
- November 2015
- Oktober 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- Juli 2015
- Juni 2015
- Mai 2015
- April 2015
- März 2015
- Februar 2015
- Jänner 2015
- Dezember 2014
- November 2014
- Oktober 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- Juli 2014
- Juni 2014
- Mai 2014
- April 2014
- März 2014
- Februar 2014
- Jänner 2014
- Dezember 2013
- November 2013
- Oktober 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- Juli 2013
- Juni 2013
- Mai 2013
- April 2013
- März 2013
- Februar 2013
- Jänner 2013
- Dezember 2012
- November 2012
- Oktober 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- Juli 2012
- Juni 2012
- Mai 2012
- April 2012
- März 2012
- Februar 2012
- Jänner 2012
- Dezember 2011
- November 2011
- Oktober 2011
- September 2011
- Juli 2011
- Juni 2011
- Mai 2011
- April 2011
- März 2011
- Februar 2011
- Jänner 2011
- November 2010
- Oktober 2010
- September 2010
- Juli 2010