VG Düsseldorf – 29 K 511/24

12 February 2026

Avalang: Created page with “{{COURTdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Germany |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png |Court_Abbrevation=VG Düsseldorf |Court_Original_Name=Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf |Court_English_Name=Administrative Court Düsseldorf |Court_With_Country=VG Düsseldorf (Germany) |Case_Number_Name=29 K 511/24 |ECLI=ECLI:DE:VGD:2024:0325.29K511.24.00 |Original_Source_Name_1=Justiz NRW |Original_Source_Link_1=https://nrwe.justiz.nrw.de/ovgs/vg_duesseldorf/j2024/29_K_511_24_Urteil_…”

{{COURTdecisionBOX

|Case_Number_Name=29 K 511/24
|ECLI=ECLI:DE:VGD:2024:0325.29K511.24.00

|Date_Decided=25.03.2024
|Date_Published=25.03.2024
|Year=2024

|EU_Law_Name_1=
|EU_Law_Link_1=
|EU_Law_Name_2=
|EU_Law_Link_2=

|National_Law_Name_1=
|National_Law_Link_1=
|National_Law_Name_2=
|National_Law_Link_2=

|Initial_Contributor=avalang
|
}}

A court dismissed a data subject’s inactivity action against a DPA under [[Article 77 GDPR|Article 77 GDPR]] because the data subject failed to prove his identity and therefore lacked a legal interest in pursuing the complaint.

== English Summary ==

=== Facts ===
On 2 May 2023, a person identifying themself under the name of the data subject lodged a complaint with the DPA against a controller, a court. This complaint alleged that the controller had not provided information as required by Article 13 and [[Article 14 GDPR|Article 14 GDPR]].

On 24 January 2024, the data subject filed an inactivity suit against the DPA on the same matter, requesting access to the administrative file.

In a procedural order on 25 January 2024, the court requested the alleged data subject to provide proof of their identity within two weeks as there were doubts about whether the person acting in the case was in fact the data subject.

On 6 February 2024, a submission arrived under the data subject’s name with a declaration of personal and economic circumstances and other documents, noting the data subject was unable to attend due to illness.

A follow-up order on 9 February 2024 reminded the data subject of the identity requirement and sought justification for why access to the file should be transmitted in print or electronic form. No further response was received and no evidence of identity was provided.

=== Holding ===
First, the court found that the person acting as the data subject had not demonstrated that they were the person affected by the underlying complaint procedure towards the supervisory authority.

The court noted numerous indicators suggesting that the person acting in the procedure might not be the data subject, including failure to respond to repeated requests to prove identity, absence from the hearing, failure to provide requested medical evidence and personal/economic declarations. The court also referenced similar earlier cases by the same person (like 29 K 8881/22) where identity doubts had arisen.

Because the person continued to press cases without establishing identity, the court stated it would in future simply file such claims rather than decide them.

As a result, the objective and subjective elements of a legal interest in pursuing the alleged claim could not be established.

Finally, the court held that that a performance claim such as an inactivity suit generally requires that the person bringing the action is the actual holder of the alleged substantive right. Hence, the lawsuit was inadmissible because the person posing as the data subject lacked a legal interest in protection under [[Article 77 GDPR|Article 77 GDPR]].

== Comment ==
”Share your comments here!”

== Further Resources ==
”Share blogs or news articles here!”

== English Machine Translation of the Decision ==
The decision below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details.

<pre>
1. Facts:

2. On May 2, 2023, a person using the plaintiff’s name filed a complaint with the defendant, the State Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information of North Rhine-Westphalia, against the “controller responsible for data processing for the arbitrator at the I. District Court, K. C.,” because “information pursuant to Articles 13 and 14 of the GDPR-EU” had not been provided.

3. On January 24, 2024, a person using the plaintiff’s name then filed an action for failure to act “for the LDI file number 000.0-0000/23.” At the same time, the plaintiff applied for legal aid and access to the case file.

4In the initial order of January 25, 2024, the plaintiff, with reference to the judgment of January 8, 2024, in case no. 29 K 8881/22 of the same heading, was requested to submit a copy of his identity card or passport within two weeks to prove his identity; the electronic court files could be viewed at a computer workstation of the court.

5By letter dated February 6, 2024, a person, writing in the plaintiff’s name, submitted a declaration completed on his behalf regarding his personal and financial circumstances, along with other documents, and inquired how he could be granted access to the files given that he was currently ill following two eye surgeries.
… 6. By court order dated February 9, 2024, addressed to the plaintiff, he was reminded of the processing of the initial order of January 25, 2024, and informed that, pursuant to Section 100 Paragraph 2 Sentence 3 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO), a printout of the file or a data carrier containing the file contents would only be transmitted upon a specifically justified request if the applicant demonstrated a legitimate interest. He was therefore requested to provide further details as to why he had a legitimate interest, for example, by submitting a corresponding medical certificate. Furthermore, transmission of the file would only be considered in the first place if his identity had been verified.

7. No response was received.

8. The plaintiff did not file a request.

9. The defendant requests that
10. the action be dismissed.

11. For further details of the facts and the legal arguments, reference is made to the contents of the court file and the administrative file.

12. Grounds for the Decision:

13. The single judge was able to render a decision despite the absence of the plaintiff and the defendant at the oral hearing because they had been notified of this legal consequence in the summons, Section 102 Paragraph 2 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO).

14. The action is unsuccessful. It is inadmissible because the plaintiff lacks the necessary legal interest at the relevant time of the oral hearing.

15. In principle, the legal interest in an action for performance, including an action for performance before the administrative court – here brought in the form of an action for failure to act – regularly arises from the fact that the plaintiff, the alleged holder of the asserted substantive claim, is seeking legal protection. The mere fact that the plaintiff turns to the court regarding the outstanding performance makes it evident that he has a “subjective” interest in the court’s decision. The fact that the plaintiff is suing for performance and thus, at the very least, no one other than the – alleged – holder of the substantive claim is seeking legal protection, also gives rise to the “objective” interest of the legal system in the recourse to the courts. This is because the principle applies that whenever the legal system grants a substantive right, it generally also recognizes the interest of the person who considers themselves the holder of that right in the judicial protection of that right. These objective and subjective elements together constitute the “legitimate interest” required for legal protection, which is expressed in Section 43 Paragraph 1 of the German Code of Administrative Procedure (VwGO) and applies not only to declaratory judgment actions. Therefore, the legal interest in a performance action brought by the alleged holder of the asserted claim is only lacking if there are special circumstances that override the aforementioned connection and eliminate the subjective or objective interest in conducting the litigation.

16 Cf. Federal Administrative Court, Judgment of January 17, 1989 – 9 C 44.87 –, juris para. 9.

17 Such special circumstances exist here. Despite the court’s expressed doubts about his identity, the plaintiff has not proven that he is the person who, as a data subject (cf. Art. 77 para. 1, Art. 4 no. 1 GDPR) and thus the holder of the asserted right, is seeking legal protection in connection with the complaint proceedings before the defendant. Therefore, at least, the objective interest in conducting the legal proceedings cannot be established.

18 There are numerous indications that the person who initiated the complaint proceedings before the defendant and is conducting the present legal proceedings is not the plaintiff, but rather another person known to the court, whose legal incapacity has been definitively established by the court, who is seeking legal protection in the plaintiff’s name. For further justification, reference is made to the reasoning in the judgment of January 8, 2024, in case no. 29 K 8881/22 of the same heading, which the single judge also adopts for the present proceedings.

19The plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s requests—also issued to protect the plaintiff from misuse of his identity—to submit a copy of his identity card or passport as proof of his identity, even in these proceedings (requests of January 25, 2024, and February 9, 2024). He has also failed to take advantage of the opportunity to disclose his identity by appearing at the oral hearing, as well as the opportunity to inspect the case file at the court office. To make matters worse, the declaration submitted on behalf of the plaintiff regarding his personal and financial circumstances is clearly incomplete, and evidence of the alleged illness preventing him from inspecting the case file at the court has not been submitted despite the court’s request. This further creates the impression that a person is using the plaintiff’s identity who only has limited access to the plaintiff’s documents.

20Since, despite the foregoing explanations and indications, inadmissible lawsuits continue to be filed on behalf of the plaintiff without proof of his identity, always following the same pattern – as this case and the parallel lawsuit 29 K 566/24 demonstrate – the Chamber, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court,

21cf. See Federal Constitutional Court, decision of April 19, 2021 – 1 BvR 2552/18 –, para. 7, available at: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2021/04/rk20210419_1bvr255218.html),

22The court will no longer decide on further actions for the plaintiff without proof of his identity, but will only add them to the file.

23The decision on costs is based on Section 154 Paragraph 1 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure.

24The decision on provisional enforceability is based on Section 167 Paragraph 1 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure in conjunction with Sections 708 No. 11, 709 Sentence 2, and 711 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

22 25 Instructions on Appeal:

26 An application for leave to appeal against this judgment may be filed in writing with the Düsseldorf Administrative Court (Bastionstraße 39, 40213 Düsseldorf or P.O. Box 20 08 60, 40105 Düsseldorf) within one month of service of the complete judgment. The application must identify the judgment being appealed.

27 Attention is drawn to the obligation, in effect since January 1, 2022, for lawyers, public authorities, and legal entities under public law, to transmit documents electronically in accordance with Sections 55a and 55d of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO) and the Ordinance on the Technical Framework for Electronic Legal Transactions and on the Special Electronic Mailbox for Public Authorities (Electronic Legal Transactions Ordinance – ERVV).

28 The grounds for granting leave to appeal must be stated within two months of service of the complete judgment.

29 An appeal shall only be admissible if:
301. there are serious doubts as to the correctness of the judgment;
312. the case presents particular factual or legal difficulties;
323. the case is of fundamental importance;
334. the judgment deviates from a decision of the Higher Administrative Court for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, the Federal Administrative Court, the Joint Panel of the Highest Courts of the Federation, or the Federal Constitutional Court, and is based on this deviation; or
345. a procedural defect subject to review by the appellate court is alleged and exists, and the decision may be based on this defect.

35The statement of grounds, unless already submitted with the application, must be filed in writing with the Higher Administrative Court for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia (Aegidiikirchplatz 5, 48143 Münster or P.O. Box 6309, 48033 Münster).

36The Higher Administrative Court for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia shall decide on the application.

37In appeal and leave to appeal proceedings, the parties must be represented by legal counsel. This also applies to procedural acts initiating the proceedings. The parties may be represented by a lawyer or a professor of law at a state or state-recognized university in a Member State of the European Union, another Contracting State of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, or Switzerland, who is qualified to hold judicial office. Attention is drawn to the additional representation options available to public authorities and legal entities under public law, including associations formed by them to fulfill their public tasks (see Section 67 Paragraph 4 Sentence 4 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) and Section 5 No. 6 of the Introductory Act to the Legal Services Act (RDGEG)). Furthermore, the persons and organizations designated in Section 67 Paragraph 2 Sentence 2 Nos. 3 to 7 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) are authorized to act as representatives under the conditions specified therein.
38The application and the statement of grounds for appeal should preferably be submitted in triplicate. If submitted as an electronic document, no copies are required.

39Decision:

40The value in dispute is set at €5,000.00.

41Reasons:

42The value in dispute was set pursuant to Section 52 Paragraph 2 of the Court Costs Act (GKG).

43Instructions on appeal:

44An appeal against the decision on the value in dispute may be lodged in writing or recorded by the clerk of the court at the Administrative Court of Düsseldorf (Bastionstraße 39, 40213 Düsseldorf or P.O. Box 20 08 60, 40105 Düsseldorf). The Higher Administrative Court for the State of North Rhine-Westphalia in Münster will decide on the appeal if it is not remedied. Section 129a of the Code of Civil Procedure applies accordingly.

45Attention is drawn to the obligation, in effect since January 1, 2022, for lawyers, public authorities, and legal entities under public law, to submit documents electronically in accordance with Sections 55a and 55d of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure (VwGO) and the Ordinance on the Technical Framework for Electronic Legal Transactions and on the Special Electronic Mailbox for Public Authorities (Electronic Legal Transactions Ordinance – ERVV).

46An appeal is admissible only if it is filed within six months of the decision on the merits becoming final or the proceedings otherwise being concluded. If the amount in dispute is determined less than one month before the expiry of this period, the appeal may still be filed within one month of service or informal notification of the order determining the amount in dispute.

47An appeal is inadmissible if the value of the subject matter of the appeal does not exceed €200.

48The notice of appeal should preferably be submitted in triplicate. If submitted electronically, no copies are required.

49If the appellant was prevented from complying with the time limit through no fault of his own, he shall, upon application, be granted reinstatement to his previous position by the court that is to decide on the appeal, provided that he lodges the appeal within two weeks of the removal of the impediment and substantiates the facts justifying the reinstatement. Reinstatement may no longer be applied for after the expiry of one year from the end of the missed time limit.
</pre>

AEPD (Spain) – EXP202306354 (PS/00312/2024)

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson Issues Warning Letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook