Take-Aways (AI)
  • Art. 12 (5) GDPR covers not only mani­fest­ly unfoun­ded or exce­s­si­ve requests, but also other abu­si­ve requests for infor­ma­ti­on in general.
  • The right to infor­ma­ti­on ser­ves the pur­po­se of inspec­tion in order to check the pro­ce­s­sing; inspec­tion pur­po­ses aimed exclu­si­ve­ly at this (e.g. pre­mi­um adjust­ments) are not cover­ed by the pro­tec­ti­ve purpose.

The Hig­her Regio­nal Court (OLG) of Hamm has ruled with a Judgment of Novem­ber 15, 2021 (20 U 269/21) The Fede­ral Court of Justi­ce han­ded down a fur­ther judgment which affirm­ed that requests for infor­ma­ti­on which are not in line with the pur­po­se of the request are an abu­se of rights:

  • Art. 12 par. 5 GDPR (unfoun­ded or exce­s­si­ve requests) is indi­ca­ted by the word “in par­ti­cu­lar” (“In the case of mani­fest­ly unfoun­ded or exce­s­si­ve requests”). in par­ti­cu­lar in the case of fre­quent repe­ti­ti­on – exce­s­si­ve requests …”), that also covers other abu­si­ve appli­ca­ti­ons are.
  • The Pur­po­se of the right of access is that data sub­jects can easi­ly and at rea­sonable inter­vals beco­me awa­re of the pro­ce­s­sing and veri­fy its lawfulness.
  • In the pre­sent case, the pur­po­se of the request for infor­ma­ti­on was exclu­si­ve­ly the Review of pre­mi­um adjust­ments due to pos­si­ble for­mal defi­ci­en­ci­es. Such an approach is not com­pa­ti­ble with the pro­tec­ti­ve pur­po­se of the GDPR. not inclu­ded.