The Bonn Regional Court (LG) awarded a former client a copy of the file via the right to information under Article 15 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), even after the national right to information had expired (judgment of December 19, 2023, no. 5 S 34/23).
The ex-client wanted to partially reclaim fees from his former lawyer. To do this, however, he needed access to his file and first requested information from the employment contract in conjunction with Sections 675, 666, 667 of the Civil Code (BGB) regarding his fees, charges and the status of his case before the Bonn District Court (AG). Procedure. However, the AG dismissed the claim due to the statute of limitations because the attorney-client relationship had already ended in 2018. In the second instance, the plaintiff complained that the AG had not dealt with a possible basis for a claim in accordance with Article 15 Para. 1, 3 GDPR beyond the national right to information.
Contrary to the defendant’s opinion, the Bonn Regional Court considered this extension of the lawsuit to be permissible because it was relevant within the meaning of Section 533 No. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). For this purpose, it is sufficient that, when viewed objectively, the dispute between the parties is finally settled and further litigation is prevented.
The claim under the BGB has actually already expired. The three-year limitation period begins with the termination of the order placed and not with the assertion of the right to information. This view is also supported by the ruling of the Federal Court of Justice of October 15, 2020 (Az. IX ZR 243/19), according to which the claim for return under Section 667 of the German Civil Code (BGB) exists and is statute-barred regardless of whether the lawyer has an obligation to retain information in accordance with Section 50 (2) sentence. 3 BRAO meet.
However, the claim under Article 15 GDPR exists. The judges of the Bonn Regional Court referred to a recent ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ, dated October 26, 2023, case C-307/22), according to which Article 15 GDPR gives the right to a complete copy of a file . The assessments from this judgment, which dealt with a doctor’s patient file, can be transferred to the present case, according to the Bonn Regional Court.
The claim is also not time-barred. However, the Bonn Regional Court did not explain why this was the case. In fact, this legal question is not quite so clear. The GDPR – like the supplementary German Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG) – does not contain any statute of limitations provisions of its own. Section 41 (2) BDSG only refers to the Administrative Offenses Act (OWiG) and the statute of limitations for prosecution regulated therein for fines, but this does not apply to the right to information. The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Celle recently brought a possible statute of limitations into play by drawing a parallel to the right to information under Section 242 of the German Civil Code (Judgment of December 14, 2022, Ref. 8 U 165/22). According to the BGH, this should expire independently according to the general deadline of § 195 BGB (cf. BGH, judgment of September 3, 2020, case number III ZR 136/18; judgment of July 25, 2017, case number VI ZR 222/16 ). However, the Celle Higher Regional Court was able to leave the crucial legal question open.
The appeal was denied.
2024-01-26 06:31:37
#Exclient #demand #files #lawyer #statute #limitations
