Take-Aways (AI)
  • Art. 15 para. 3 GDPR does not requi­re the release of indi­vi­du­al copies of docu­ments, but a copy of the pro­ce­s­sed per­so­nal data.
  • Copy” is to be under­s­tood as a meaningful­ly struc­tu­red sum­ma­ry, not as a copy of all the docu­ments concerned.
  • The obli­ga­ti­on to pro­vi­de a copy spe­ci­fi­es and sup­ple­ments Art. 15 (1) and deter­mi­nes the man­ner in which infor­ma­ti­on is provided.
  • A true copy of a docu­ment is only requi­red if it is neces­sa­ry to veri­fy the lawful­ness of the processing.

The Hes­si­an Data Pro­tec­tion Com­mis­sio­ner has published his 47th acti­vi­ty report published. Par­ti­cu­lar­ly note­wor­t­hy are his comm­ents on the scope of the right to infor­ma­ti­on pur­su­ant to Art. 15 GDPR.

First, he expres­ses his opi­ni­on on the sub­ject of the right to infor­ma­ti­on, as follows:

As a rule, Art. 15 (3) GDPR does not con­tain a cla­im to the issu­an­ce of indi­vi­du­al copies – e.g., in the sen­se of a pho­to­co­py of cer­tain docu­ments: The obli­ga­ti­on to pro­vi­de a copy is not to be equa­ted with a gene­ral right of access to infor­ma­ti­on or a right to inspect files

This view is also cor­rect under the Swiss DPA. Here, too, the right to infor­ma­ti­on is direc­ted at per­so­nal data, not at docu­ments con­tai­ning per­so­nal data.

The Hes­si­an Com­mis­sio­ner justi­fi­es his opi­ni­on as follows:

I am of the opi­ni­on that Art. 15 (3) and (4) of the GDPR is not a right detached from Art. 15 (1) of the GDPR. Con­trol­lers must the­r­e­fo­re com­ply with the obli­ga­ti­on con­tai­ned in Art. 15(3) of the GDPR even wit­hout a cor­re­spon­ding noti­ce to the data sub­jects. This is sup­port­ed by the wor­ding of Artic­le 15 (3) of the GDPR. Accor­din­gly, data sub­jects must be pro­vi­ded with a copy of the per­so­nal data that is the sub­ject of the pro­ce­s­sing. In this respect, Artic­le 15 (3) of the GDPR sub­stan­tia­tes the wor­ding of Artic­le 15 (1) (b) of the GDPR: Data sub­jects must not only be shown the cate­go­ries of per­so­nal data that are pro­ce­s­sed, but their spe­ci­fic per­so­nal data must be com­mu­ni­ca­ted. Art. 15(3) of the GDPR thus spe­ci­fi­es the pro­vi­si­on con­tai­ned in Art. 15(1)(b) of the GDPR on the scope of the right to infor­ma­ti­on and deter­mi­nes the man­ner (copy) of pro­vi­ding infor­ma­ti­on.

Fur­ther, by “copy” it is not meant that each indi­vi­du­al per­so­nal data is to be provided:

I under­stand the copy term of Art. 15 (3) DS-GVO in the sen­se of a meaningful­ly struc­tu­red sum­ma­ry. The per­sons con­cer­ned must the­r­e­fo­re be not be pro­vi­ded with copies of all docu­ments con­cer­ning them.

Artic­le 15 (3) of the GDPR mere­ly regu­la­tes the way in which infor­ma­ti­on is pro­vi­ded and has a ser­ving func­tion com­pared to Artic­le 15 (1) of the GDPR: the data sub­jects are once again – by pro­vi­ding a struc­tu­red sum­ma­ry of their per­so­nal data – pro­vi­ded with the infor­ma­ti­on they requi­re. made known in con­textwhich per­so­nal data is pro­ce­s­sed by the data controller.

In the case of employee data, the Hes­si­an Com­mis­sio­ner con­siders the fol­lo­wing to be sufficient:

  • Pro­vi­si­on of a Pro­fi­le excerpt of data sub­jects in the case of use of a per­son­nel infor­ma­ti­on system by respon­si­ble persons

  • List of docu­ments or file num­bers stored for a per­son when using a docu­ment manage­ment or fil­ing system

    A right to a copy of indi­vi­du­al docu­ments may exist if this is neces­sa­ry to veri­fy the lawful­ness of the data pro­ce­s­sing. As a rule, howe­ver, it should be suf­fi­ci­ent to inform the data sub­ject of the data con­tai­ned in the docu­ment. The copy of a docu­ment or an e‑mail would usual­ly not have to be provided.
    It is then per­mis­si­ble in the employment rela­ti­on­ship to demand that the per­sons con­cer­ned spe­ci­fy their request for information.