BGH - VI ZR 375/2

Summary

The German Federal Court of Justice ruled that a debt collection agency unlawfully transmitted information about outstanding debts to a credit information agency. The court found no legal basis for the data transfer under GDPR, as the agency failed to demonstrate legitimate interests. The data subject is entitled to the revocation of the disputed credit reports and non-material damages.

Full text

Help BGH - VI ZR 375/2: Difference between revisions From GDPRhub Jump to:navigation, search ← Older editVisualWikitext Revision as of 13:29, 7 July 2026 view sourceAv (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators64 editsTag: Visual edit← Older edit Latest revision as of 07:26, 8 July 2026 view source Av (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators64 editsmTag: Visual edit Line 68: Line 68: }}}} The Federal Court of Justice held that a debt collection agency had unlawfully transmitted information on outstanding debts to a credit information agency. The data subject was entitled to the revocation of the disputed credit reports and non-material damages.The Federal Court of Justice held that a debt collection agency had unlawfully transmitted information on outstanding debts to a credit information agency. The data subject was entitled to the revocation of the disputed data and non-material damages. == English Summary ==== English Summary == Latest revision as of 07:26, 8 July 2026 BGH - VI ZR 375/24 Court: BGH (Germany) Jurisdiction: Germany Relevant Law: Article 6(1)(f) GDPR Article 17(1)(d) GDPR Article 19 GDPR Article 82 GDPR Decided: 12.05.2026 Published: 29.06.2026 Parties: National Case Number/Name: VI ZR 375/24 European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:DE:BGH:2026:120526UVIZR375.24.0 Appeal from: Appeal to: Not appealed Original Language(s): German Original Source: BGH (in German) Initial Contributor: av The Federal Court of Justice held that a debt collection agency had unlawfully transmitted information on outstanding debts to a credit information agency. The data subject was entitled to the revocation of the disputed data and non-material damages. Contents 1 English Summary 1.1 Facts 1.2 Holding 2 Comment 3 Further Resources 4 English Machine Translation of the Decision English Summary Facts A debt collection agency (the controller) sent reminders to a customer (the data subject) for delayed installment payments related to a terminated electricity contract in November 2019. The data subject considered the claimed sums to be excessive and refused to pay. The controller transmitted the information on outstanding debts of €795 and €817 to a credit information agency, which in turn made negative entries in its database. This lowered the credit score assigned to the data subject by the credit information agency. The data subject sued the controller for disclosing outstanding receivables to the credit information agency. The court of first instance ordered the controller to revoke the negative entries contained in the credit ranking database and awarded the data subject €500 in damages. The controller appealed this decision. The appellate court held that there had been no legal basis for the transmission of personal data, as the data subject had not consented to the processing and the requirements for legitimate interests pursuant to Article 6(1)(f) GDPR were not met. However, the court considered that the data subject had not suffered any non-material damage within the meaning of Article 82 GDPR. The controller appealed the case further to the Federal Court of Justice. Holding The Federal Court of Justice dismissed the controller’s appeal and referred the case back to the appellate court. First, the court held transmitting the personal data to the credit information agency had been unlawful due to the lack of a legal basis. It pointed out that the requirements for processing based on legitimate interests laid down in Article 6(1)(f) GDPR were not met. As such, legitimate public interests in preventing the granting of credit to those who are unable or unwilling to pay could justify the transfer of data to credit information agencies. However, no meaningful indications regarding the data subject’s ability or willingness to pay could be derived from the credit information entries at issue: the controller had failed to demonstrate the debts existed in the amount claimed. Therefore, it could not rely on legitimate interests as a legal basis. Second, the court held that the data subject was entitled to the revocation of the disputed credit information entries due to the unlawful disclosure of their personal data. According to the court, this claim could be based on 1) the application of Article 19 GDPR in conjunction with Article 17(1) (d) GDPR, 2) Article 19 GDPR in conjunction with Articles 5(1)(a), 5(2), and 24(1) GDPR, or 3) national law by analogy. Third, the court held that the data subject had suffered non-material damage within the meaning of Article 82 GDPR due to the harm caused to their economic reputation. The fact that the credit reports adversely affected the data subject’s credit score, which could then be taken into account by potential contractual partners, was enough to give rise to a claim for damages. The court pointed out that the transmission of personal data to one recipient and the risk of further transmissions to third parties already constituted loss of control; the data subject did not need to prove a feeling of helplessness, fear, or anxiety to be entitled to damages. 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. FEDERAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE JUDGMENT VI ZR 375/24 in the legal dispute Reference work: yes BGHZ: no BGHR: yes JNeu: yes GDPR Art. 6 para. 1 subpara. 1 letter f, Art. 17 para. 1 letter d, Art. 19 sentence 1, Art. 82 para. 1; German Civil Code (BGB) § 823 para. 1 ah, § 1004 para. 1 sentence 1 a) On the admissibility of the transfer of personal data in the context of reporting an alleged outstanding debt to a credit reporting agency. b) If personal data relating to alleged outstanding debts are unlawfully transferred to a credit reporting agency, the data subject may have a claim against the transferring party for the removal of the consequences in the form of the revocation of the report. c) On the concept of non-material damage within the meaning of Article 82 GDPR. Federal Court of Justice (BGH), Judgment of May 12, 2026 - VI ZR 375/24 - Higher Regional Court of Schleswig Regional Court of Kiel ECLI:DE:BGH:2026:120526UVIZR375.24.0 - 2 - The Sixth Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice, in the oral proceedings of May 12, 2026, with Presiding Judge Seiters, Judges Dr. Klein, Dr. Allgayer and Böhm, and Judge Dr. Linder rendered for justice: Upon the plaintiff's cross-appeal, the judgment of the 17th Civil Senate of the Schleswig-Holstein Higher Regional Court of November 22, 2024, as amended by the rectification order of December 17, 2024, is set aside with respect to costs and insofar as it is unfavorable to the plaintiff. The defendant's appeal against the aforementioned judgment is dismissed. To the extent of the reversal, the case is remanded to the court of appeals for a new hearing and decision, including on the costs of the appeal proceedings. By law Statement of Facts: 1. The plaintiff is suing the defendant debt collection agency for the revocation of outstanding receivables and compensation for non-pecuniary damages after the report of outstanding receivables to SCHUFA Holding AG (hereinafter: SCHUFA). 2. In 2014, the plaintiff received electricity from i.-Energie GmbH. This company terminated the contract without notice because the plaintiff was in arrears with advance payments. With a final invoice dated October 11, 2014, it billed him €529.16. Subsequently, a debt collection agency, acting on behalf of i.-Energie GmbH, sent reminders to the plaintiff. By letter dated November 29, 2014, the plaintiff informed i.-Energie GmbH that he had received neither the invoice nor the reminders. Regardless, he rejected the claim of €529.16 as "excessive and over- excessive." He requested a "corrected

Entities