BGer, 1A.6/2001: “Cor­rect­ness” of a sus­pi­cious acti­vi­ty report

The BGer expres­ses its­elf in the pre­sent case on the que­sti­on of when a SAR is “cor­rect” within the mea­ning of DPA 5:

He over­looks the fact that the anony­mous tele­pho­ne call to his employer actual­ly gave rise to the sus­pi­ci­on that the acci­dent in Pol­and might have been faked. The Repro­duc­tion of this sus­pi­ci­on in the employer’s let­ter and in the so-cal­led P. report does not in its­elf con­sti­tu­te fal­se or inac­cu­ra­te infor­ma­ti­on, but rather Cor­re­sponds to the actu­al con­di­ti­ons. The same applies to the other docu­ments that were sub­se­quent­ly drawn up: In them, the actu­al sus­pi­ci­on, as it had ari­sen on the basis of the cir­cum­stances, is mere­ly taken up, wit­hout the com­plainant being “accu­sed” of having faked the acci­dent in Poland.