Take-Aways (AI)
  • The Regio­nal Court of Colo­gne affirms a broad right to infor­ma­ti­on in accordance with Art. 15 GDPR in rela­ti­on to stored per­so­nal data, but not any inter­nal information.
  • No gene­ral right to copies of files: Only per­so­nal data is to be copied, not expert opi­ni­ons, legal assess­ments or inter­nal notes.
  • Data of alre­a­dy known con­tents (e.g. e‑mails alre­a­dy recei­ved) are not neces­s­a­ri­ly sub­ject to a copy cla­im; pro­vi­si­on can be made in extra­c­ta­ble form.

The Colo­gne Regio­nal Court has ruled in a Par­ti­al judgment of 18.03.2019 (26 O 25/18) deci­ded on the scope of the right to copy as part of the right of access under Art. 15 GDPR – a topic that is curr­ent­ly the sub­ject of inten­se deba­te, becau­se requests for infor­ma­ti­on have a very broad scope of appli­ca­ti­on accor­ding to the wor­ding and, par­ti­cu­lar­ly in the employment rela­ti­on­ship, may also include e‑mail cor­re­spon­dence, but also data such as pass­word chan­ges or on/off badge data. Fur­ther infor­ma­ti­on on this can be found in artic­les by Tim Wybi­tul and Car­lo Piltz.

Against this back­ground, the par­ti­al judgment of the Colo­gne Regio­nal Court is to be welcomed.

  • Alt­hough it first sta­tes that the Com­pre­hen­si­ve right to infor­ma­ti­on is:

    rela­ted to the per­so­nal data stored or pro­ce­s­sed. This inclu­des data such as name or date of birth as well as any cha­rac­te­ri­stics that may allow the iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of a per­son, e.g. health data, account num­ber, etc. Accor­ding to the­se prin­ci­ples and based on the reci­tals, medi­cal records, expert opi­ni­ons or other simi­lar com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons from other sources also con­sti­tu­te ‘per­so­nal data’.”

  • Howe­ver, the­re is still no right to file copies:

    In the Board’s view, howe­ver, the right to infor­ma­ti­on rela­tes to. not to all inter­nal pro­ce­s­ses of the defen­dant, such as endor­se­ments, or to the fact that the per­son con­cer­ned all cor­re­spon­dence exch­an­ged, which is alre­a­dy known to the per­son con­cer­ned, can be prin­ted out and sent again […]. Legal assess­ments or ana­ly­ses in this respect also do not con­sti­tu­te per­so­nal data in this sen­se. The cla­im under Artic­le 15 GDPR is not inten­ded to sim­pli­fy the data subject’s accoun­ting, but to ensu­re that the data sub­ject can assess the scope and con­tent of the stored per­so­nal data. Con­se­quent­ly, Artic­le 15 (3) of the GDPR sti­pu­la­tes that the data sub­ject must a copy (only) of the per­so­nal datawhich are the sub­ject of the pro­ce­s­sing. In the pre­sent case, the defen­dant has pro­vi­ded various infor­ma­ti­on […] and sta­ted that fur­ther per­so­nal data about the plain­ti­ff were not stored or pro­ce­s­sed. Sub­stan­tia­ted sub­mis­si­ons by the plain­ti­ff as to what addi­tio­nal infor­ma­ti­on could have been pro­ce­s­sed by the defen­dant have not been made.”

This cle­ar­ly shows that the Colo­gne Regio­nal Court assu­mes a broad scope with regard to the scope of the right to infor­ma­ti­on; that the sub­ject of the infor­ma­ti­on and copy are not expert opi­ni­ons and other docu­ments, but only the per­so­nal data con­tai­ned the­r­ein, if any.. The right to infor­ma­ti­on the­r­e­fo­re does not requi­re the docu­ments in que­sti­on to be sub­mit­ted. The data can also be pro­vi­ded extra­c­ted, e.g. as an Excel document.

This also cor­re­sponds to the posi­ti­on of the Bava­ri­an super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, of the BayL­DA. At Acti­vi­ty Report 17/18 holds it:

The right to infor­ma­ti­on under data pro­tec­tion law pur­su­ant to Artic­le 15 of the GDPR rela­tes, accor­ding to the wor­ding of para­graph 1, to the pro­vi­si­on of infor­ma­ti­on about the per­so­nal data pro­ce­s­sed by the con­trol­ler. Howe­ver, this does not regu­lar­ly mean the han­do­ver of all docu­ments, e‑mails, etc., which con­tain, for exam­p­le, the name of the data sub­ject and any other infor­ma­ti­on about that per­son. Accor­ding to Artic­le 15 (3) of the GDPR, only a “copy of the per­so­nal data which are the sub­ject of the pro­ce­s­sing” must be made available. Howe­ver, the­re is no men­ti­on here of copies of the files con­cer­ned, of other docu­ments, etc.

Fur­ther­mo­re, it beco­mes clear that the Regio­nal Court of Colo­gne does not see any right to infor­ma­ti­on and thus also no right to a copy with regard to data which the data sub­ject – e.g. as the sub­ject of e‑mails – has been pro­vi­ded with. alre­a­dy known are.