[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$fYXq4sqw23lshoPHYhNu3-4zuHtEn_LwGl1TvdgBv0VE":3},{"article":4,"iocs":40},{"id":5,"title":6,"slug":7,"summary":8,"ai_summary":9,"brief":10,"full_text":11,"url":12,"image_url":13,"published_at":14,"ingested_at":15,"relevance_score":16,"entities":17,"category_id":23,"category":24,"article_tags":28},"d2017409-f97d-4249-9825-b1383b3d9ff8","VG Berlin - 42 K 25\u002F25","vg-berlin-42-k-25-25-135b06","Created page with \"{{COURTdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Germany |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png |Court_Abbrevation=VG Berlin |Court_Original_Name=Verwaltungsgericht Berlin |Court_English_Name=Administrative Court Berlin |Court_With_Country=VG Berlin (Germany) |Case_Number_Name=42 K 25\u002F25 |ECLI=ECLI:DE:VGBE:2026:0617.42K25.25.00 |Original_Source_Name_1=VIS Berlin |Original_Source_Link_1=https:\u002F\u002Fgesetze.berlin.de\u002Fjportal\u002Frecherche3doc\u002FVG_Berlin_42_K_25-25_NJRE001649655.pdf?json...\" New page {{COURTdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Germany |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png |Court_Abbrevation=VG Berlin |Court_Original_Name=Verwaltungsgericht Berlin |Court_English_Name=Administrative Court Berlin |Court_With_Country=VG Berlin (Germany) |Case_Number_Name=42 K 25\u002F25 |ECLI=ECLI:DE:VGBE:2026:0617.42K25.25.00 |Original_Source_Name_1=VIS Berlin |Original_Source_Link_1=https:\u002F\u002Fgesetze.berlin.de\u002Fjportal\u002Frecherche3doc\u002FVG_Berlin_42_K_25-25_NJRE001649655.pdf?json=%7B%22format%22%3A%22pdf%22%2C%22docId%22%3A%22NJRE001649655%22%2C%22portalId%22%3A%22bsbe%22%7D&_=%2FVG_Berlin_42_K_25-25_NJRE001649655.pdf |Original_Source_Language_1=German |Original_Source_Language__Code_1=DE |Original_Source_Name_2= |Original_Source_Link_2= |Original_Source_Language_2= |Original_Source_Language__Code_2= |Date_Started= |Date_Decided=17.06.2026 |Date_Published=08.08.2026 |Year=2026 |GDPR_Article_1=Article 15(1) GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 15 GDPR#1 |GDPR_Article_2=Article 15(3) GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_2=Article 15 GDPR#3 |GDPR_Article_3=Article 91(1) GDPR |GDPR_Article_Link_3=Article 91 GDPR#1 |GDPR_Article_4= |GDPR_Article_Link_4= |GDPR_Article_5= |GDPR_Article_Link_5= |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= |Party_Name_1= |Party_Link_1= |Party_Name_2= |Party_Link_2= |Appeal_From_Body= |Appeal_From_Case_Number_Name= |Appeal_From_Status= |Appeal_From_Link= |Appeal_To_Body= |Appeal_To_Case_Number_Name= |Appeal_To_Status=Unknown |Appeal_To_Link= |Initial_Contributor=av | }} A court ordered a congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses to provide its former members access to their personal undergoing processing by handing over a copy of an introductory letter that was sent to the members' new congregation. == English Summary == === Facts === A Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation (the controller) sent another congregation an introductory letter containing the personal data of two members (the data subjects) who were changing congregations from the controller to the recipient. The data subjects did not receive a copy of this letter despite their request. They filed a complaint with the DPA in July 2023, stating that their right of access under the GDPR had been violated. The controller argued that providing access to the introductory letter would undermine confidentiality required by religious law. According to the controller, restricting the right of access was necessary to allow the elders of the congregations to fulfill their biblical mandate to care for the members as shepherds of God’s flock. The controller only provided the data subjects a short list of information about them contained in the letter. The DPA dismissed the complaint as unfounded in May 2024. It held that the restriction to the right of access was justified under Article 91(1) and the national Jehovah’s Witnesses Data Protection Act (DSGJZ), as providing access would jeopardise the religious community’s ability to fulfill its mission. The data subjects filed a lawsuit before the Administrative Court of Berlin in May 2024, claiming the right to obtain a copy of the introductory letter. === Holding === The court ordered the controller to provide the data subjects access to their personal data undergoing processing by handing over a copy of the introductory letter addressed to the data subjects’ new congregation. First, the court referred to the principle of primacy of EU law and held that Article 91(1) gives precedence to the data protection rules of religious associations or communities only insofar as these rules comply with the GDPR. Second, the court concluded that the data subjects were entitled to receive the requested copy pursuant to Article 15(1) in conjunction with [[Article 15 GDPR|Article 15(3) GDPR]]. The court considered a merely abstract overview of the processed data insufficient for verifying the lawfulness of processing. Furthermore, it assumed that the whole letter contained personal data and must therefore be disclosed in its entirety. == 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. Court: Berlin Administrative Court, 42nd Chamber Date of Decision: June 17, 2026 Case Number: 42 K 25\u002F25 ECLI: ECLI:DE:VGBE:2026:0617.42K25.25.00 Document Type: Judgement Source: Legal Provisions: Art. 15 EUV 2016\u002F679, Art. 91 EUV 2016\u002F679, § 8(1)(4) DSGJZ Operative Part The defendant is ordered, upon annulment of the decision of the Data Protection Supervisory Authority for Jehovah’s Witnesses dated May 27, 2024, to provide the plaintiffs with information regarding the plaintiffs’ personal data processed by the defendant by providing a copy of the introductory letter prepared on the occasion of the plaintiffs’ transfer from J… to L… effective July 1, 2023. The defendant shall bear the costs of the proceedings. The judgement is provisionally enforceable with respect to costs. The defendant may avert enforcement by posting security in the amount of 110% of the amount enforceable pursuant to the judgement, unless the plaintiffs first post security in the amount of 110% of the respective amount to be enforced. An appeal is permitted. Facts 1 The plaintiffs seek information from the defendant under data protection law in the form of the provision of a copy of an introductory letter. 2 The plaintiffs are members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. As of July 1, 2023, they transferred from the Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation in O… to the congregation in L…. For this reason, the transferring congregation issued a so-called “introduction letter” to the receiving congregation. 3 Despite their request, the plaintiffs did not receive a copy of the introduction letter. They therefore contacted the defendant’s data protection supervisory authority in a letter dated July 25, 2023, signed only by Plaintiff No. 1, and complained that their right to information had not been fulfilled. 4 The L… Congregation replied with a letter addressed to Plaintiff No. 1) dated August 18, 2023. Religious law stipulates that in the event of a change of congregation, a letter of introduction must be sent by the elders of the former congregation to the elders of the new congregation. This enables the elders to fulfill their biblical mandate to care for the preachers as shepherds of God’s flock. For the exercise of their pastoral duties, it is essential that elders be able to rely on confidentiality in their collaboration. A right of access could deter elders from fulfilling their pastoral mandate in all sincerity. For this reason, it is not provided for in the defendant’s religious law. However, to the extent that this does not jeopardize the spiritual and pastoral mission, - Page 1 of 6 - disclosure of the personal data contained in the introductory letter is permissible. This procedure is carried out in accordance with state data protection laws. The introductory letters concerning the plaintiffs contain the following data regarding the plaintiffs: “No attendance at meeting places; well-thought-out and fre- quent comments; no ministry position; no duties in the LuDZ; not on trolley duty; assigned to ÖZB, long-haul driving duty, and port duty.” 5 Further correspondence followed, in particular with the Central Europe branch office of the defendant, which assumed that the right to information had been satisfied by the letter from the L… congregation. 6 The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on May 15, 2024. In support of their claim, they essentially argue that the defendant is attempting to rely on biblical interpretations to conceal its own misconduct. By doing so, it is in violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). 7 On May 27, 2024, the Jehovah’s Witnesses Data Protection Authority issued a decision addressed to Plaintiff No. 1, in which it dismissed his complaint as unfounded. In support of its decision, it stated that the defendant is subject to regulations within the meaning of Art. 91(1) of the GDPR. The right of access (Art. 15 of the GDPR) is fully guaranteed by § 9(1) of the Jehovah’s Witnesses Data Protection Act (DSGJZ) in accordance with the following paragraphs. Pursuant to § 9(3)(1) in conjunction with § 8(1)(4) of the DSG- JZ, the right of access does not apply if providing the information would jeopardize the fulfillment of the religious community’s mission. In the present case, the rights of the elders as authors of the introductory letter must be taken into account. Without the restriction on the right of access, they could be prevented from fully carrying out their pastoral duties. This, in turn, would jeopardize the fulfillment of the religious community’s spiritual and pastoral mission. Therefore, the restriction of the right of access is necessary and warranted in the present case. 8 The plaintiffs file a lawsuit requesting that 9 the defendant be ordered—upon revocation of the decision of the Data Protection Authority of Jehovah’s Witnesses dated May 27, 2024—to provide them with information regarding the by providing a copy of the orientation letter processed on the occasion of their transfer from J… to L… effective July 1, 2023. 10 The defendant moves to 11 dismiss the lawsuit. 12 The defendant contends that the lawsuit is inadmissible because the Administrative Court is not competent to make a decision on the matter. The right to seek redress before the state Courts is not available. This concerns a church-related activity within the core scope of the religious community’s work. Furthermore, the lawsuit brought by Plaintiff No. 2 is in any case inadmissible, as she neither submitted a corresponding request for information nor contacted the defendant’s data protection supervisory authority. 13 The lawsuit is also without merit. Plaintiff No. 1) was promptly provided, by means of the letter from the L… Congregation dated August 18, 2023, with information regarding the data concerning him contained in the - Page 2 of 6 - letter of admission. He is not entitled to any further claims. Furthermore, by being baptized, the plaintiffs submitted to the defendant’s religious law and thereby also consented to the practice of the introductory letter. 14 For further details regarding the facts and the state of the dispute, reference is made to the contents of the case file and the administrative record. These were available and formed the basis of the oral hearing and the decision-making process. Reasons for the Decision 15 The lawsuit is granted. 16 I. The lawsuit is admissible. 17 1. The right to seek redress before the state courts is open. This follows from the constitutionally guaranteed right to access the state judiciary, which exists when a violation of state law is asserted (see BVerfG, decision not to accept the lawsuit of April 22, 2026 – 2 BvR 264\u002F26 –, juris para. 31 with further references). This is the case here, as the plaintiffs assert a violation of their rights under the GDPR. 18 Nor are state legal remedies subsidiary in this case. According to the case law of the Federal Administrative Court, which the Chamber follows, state Courts may be invoked only after all internal church remedies have been exhausted (BVerwG, judgement of February 27, 2014 – BVerwG 2 C 19.12 –, juris para. 27). However, no such internal church remedy exists. It is true that para 27(1) of the Jehovah’s Witnesses Data Protection Act (DSGJZ), as amended on May 21, 2018 (Official Gazette of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Germany, No. 2, 2018, p. 1 et seq.) provides for a judicial remedy for which a Court established by the defendant’s own religious body has jurisdiction in data protection matters within the meaning of § 27(3) DSGJZ, provided that such a Court has been established. However, this is precisely not the case. Jehovah’s Witnesses have not established a court specific to their religion. 19 2. The lawsuit is admissible as an action for performance pursuant to § 42(1), alternative 2, VwGO (see, in this regard, BVerwG, judgement of November 30, 2022 – BVerwG 6 C 10.21 –, juris para. 14) and is also admissible in all other respects. In particular, the need for legal protection of both plaintiffs must be affirmed. The Chamber has no reason to doubt the statements in the complaint dated July 25, 2023, signed by Plaintiff 1), according to which not only he, but also second plaintiff verbally requested a copy of the introductory letter at the L… meeting. Contrary to the defendant’s assertion, the complaint dated July 25, 2023, signed by Plaintiff No. 1, was also filed on behalf of Plaintiff No. 2). This is how the Chamber interprets the complaint. Plaintiff No. 1 ultimately drafted this lawsuit entirely in the first-person plural and thus also on behalf of Plaintiff No. 2). In any case, it is irrelevant whether the plaintiffs actually filed a complaint with the supervisory authority. This is because the judicial remedy may also be brought alongside and independently of the complaint filed with the supervisory authority (see CJEU, Judgement of January 12, 2023—C-132\u002F21—para. 35). 20 II. The lawsuit is also well-founded because the plaintiffs are entitled to information regarding the personal data processed by the defendant through the provision of a copy of the introductory letter prepared on the occasion of their transfer from J… to L… as of 1 Ju- - Page 3 of 6 - July 2023, in accordance with Art. 15(1) in conjunction with (3), first sentence, of the DSG- Regulation. 21 1. The General Data Protection Regulation is applicable. Para 9(3)(1) in conjunction with Para 8(1) No. 4 of the DSGJZ falls short of the level of protection provided by the General Data Protection Regulation and has no legal effect. 22 Article 91(1) of the GDPR does not preclude the applicability of the General Data Protection Regulation. This article does not generally exclude ecclesiastical data protection law—such as, in this case, the Jehovah’s Witnesses Data Protection Act—from the scope of application of the General Data Protection Regulation, but rather grants it priority only on the condition that it is brought into line with the level of protection provided by the General Data Protection Regulation (BVerfG, Order of Non-Admission of April 22, 2026—2 BvR 264\u002F26—, juris para. 35 with Further references). This is supported by the wording of Art. 91(1) of the GDPR, according to which a church or a religious association or community that, at the time the General Data Protection Regulation, applies comprehensive rules in a Member State for the protection of natural persons with regard to processing, may continue to apply those rules only if they are brought into compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation. 23 The spirit and purpose of this article also support this view. The fundamental extension of the data protection law of the GDPR—as provided for in Article 91(1)—to churches and religious communities is required under Union law due to the fundamental right to the protection personal data (see Art. 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) is required under Union law. Art. 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union establishes a positive obligation for the Union legislature to ensure an appropriate level of data protection. The fundamental right does not provide for sector-specific exceptions, such as for religious communities. Nor can these fundamental rights assessments be overridden by para 17 of Art. 17 of the TFEU. Thus, while sector-specific data protection regulations are permissible, those that lower the level of protection in churches and religious communities are not (see BVerfG, decision not to accept the case of April 22, 2026 – 2 BvR 264\u002F26—, juris para. 35; Seifert, in: Simitis\u002FHornung\u002FSpiecker, ed. Döhmann, Data Protection Law, 2nd ed. 2025, Art. 91 GDPR, para. 12; see also: Gerjets, European and Church Data Protection, p. 134 et seq.). 24 Ultimately, the concept underlying the GDPR amounts to a uniform standard for state and church data protection law in the Member States. If ecclesiastical data protection regulations are not in compliance with the GDPR, they generally do not enjoy the grandfather clause under Art. 91(1) GDPR and no longer have any legal effect. Due to the primacy of Union law over national law, in the event of a violation of church data protection regulations by the GDPR, the relevant provisions of the GDPR apply. These then have, pursuant to Art. 288(2), second sentence, TFEU, have direct effect within the religious community whose autonomous data protection law is not in compliance with the GDPR. Violations by religious organizations of the limited exemption provided in Article 91(1) of the GDPR thus result in the loss of their data protection privileges to that extent, and to that extent, the fully harmonizing effect of the GDPR is restored (Seifert, in: Simitis\u002FHornung\u002FSpiecker, ed. Döhmann, 2nd ed. 2025, Data Protection Law, 2nd ed. 2025, Art. 91 GDPR, para. 22). Contrary to the defendant’s view, particularly with reference to the expert opinion submitted during the oral hearing (see, for example, page 26 of the expert opinion), the defendant has no discretion in this regard. Nor does the Chamber consider that the defendant’s own data protection law takes precedence (see page 31 of the expert opinion). - Page 4 of 6 - 25 Para 9(3)(1), cited by the defendant as grounds for refusing to disclose the data, in conjunction with para 8(1)(4) DSGJZ is not in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation and therefore has no legal effect. Pursuant to § 9(3) 26 No. 1 DSGJZ, the right to access information does not exist if the data subject is not required to be informed under § 8 (1) No. 4 DSGJZ. Pursuant to § 8(1)(4) of the DSGJZ, the right to have the duty to provide information fulfilled upon direct data collection is guaranteed, provided that this right may be restricted if the disclosure would jeopardize the religious community’s ability to fulfill its mission. The defendant emphasizes that without this restriction on the right of access, the elders would be prevented from fully carrying out their pastoral duties. Article 15 of the GDPR does not provide for such a restriction. It is true that, under Article 15(4) of the GDPR, the right to receive a copy must not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. This also protects the rights of the controller (Bäcker, in: Kühling\u002FBuchner, 4th ed. 2024, GDPR BDSG, Art. 15 GDPR, para. 42). § 8(1)(4) of the DSGJZ and the “shepherd’s mandate” cited by the defendant in reliance on this exception, however, go far beyond the limits of the right to a copy of data permitted under Art. 15(4) GDPR (see also critical commentary on other provisions of the DSGJZ in Gerjets, European and Ecclesiastical Data Protection, p. 134 et seq.). The exclusion of the right to a copy of one’s data on the grounds that it would jeopardize the mission of the religious community would, given the sweeping nature of the grounds for exclusion, turn the relationship between the General Data Protection Regulation and ecclesiastical data protection law—as outlined above—on its head. The level of protection provided by the General Data Protection Regulation would no longer be lowered on a sector-specific basis, but rather in general. 27 2. The plaintiffs are entitled to receive the requested copy pursuant to Art. 15 (1) in conjunction with (3), first sentence, of the GDPR. The requirements are met. According to this provision, the data subject—in this case, the plaintiffs—has the right to request from the controller —in this case, the defendant—confirmation as to whether personal data concerning them is being processed. The controller shall provide a copy of the personal data that is the subject of the processing. 28 Nor has the defendant already satisfied the plaintiffs’ claim through the letter from the L… Assembly dated August 18, 2023. 29 The purpose of the right of access under Art. 15(1) of the GDPR is, as is evident, among other things, from Recital 63 of the GDPR, to enable the data subject to become aware of the processing of personal data concerning him or her so that they may subsequently verify not only the accuracy of such data but also the lawfulness of its processing and, where appropriate, exercise the rights to which they are entitled under Articles 16 et seq. of the GDPR—such as the right to erasure or restriction of the processing of the data—(CJEU, Judgement of May 4, 2023 – C-487\u002F21 –, juris para. 33 et seq.). In order to be able to verify the lawfulness of data processing in each individual case, it is necessarily required to be specifically informed of the context in which the data were processed (CJEU, Judgement of May 4, 2023, – C- 487\u002F21 –, juris para. 41 et seq.; see also CJEU, Judgement of June 22, 2023 – C 579\u002F21 –, juris para. 64 et seq.). This can generally be achieved by providing a copy within the meaning of Art. 15(3), first sentence, of the GDPR, that is, a complete, faithful reproduction of the processed data (CJEU, Judgement of May 4, 2023, – C-487\u002F21 –, juris - Page 5 of 6 - para. 32, 39, and Judgement of June 22, 2023, – C-579\u002F21 –, juris; see also CJEU, judgement of October 26, 2023 – C-307\u002F22 –, juris, para. 79). 30 Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to receive a copy of the induction letter prepared in connection with the plaintiffs’ change of position effective July 1, 2023. This is because, as the plaintiffs have rightly pointed out, a merely abstract overview of the processed data is insufficient for a review of legality in the specific individual case. The bullet-point list stating “No visits to meeting places; well-thought-out and frequent comments; no duty office; no tasks in the LuDZ; not on trolley duty; deployed in ÖZB, long-haul driving duty, and port duty” does does not enable the plaintiffs to sufficiently verify the admissibility of the data processing. Furthermore, the Chamber assumes that the introductory letter contains personal data in its entirety and must therefore be disclosed. 31 The decision on costs is based on § 154(1) VwGO. 31 The decision on costs is based on para 154 of VwGO. The decision on provisional enforceability is based on § 167 para 1 and 2 VwGO in conjunction with § 708 No. 11, § 709 sentence 2, and § 711 ZPO. 32 The appeal was admissible pursuant to § 124a(1), first sentence, in conjunction with § 124(2), No. 3, VwGO, because the question of whether and to what extent the General Data Protection Regulation applies to religious communities- such as the defendant is of fundamental importance. - Page 6 of 6 -","A German court has ruled that a Jehovah's Witnesses congregation must provide former members with a copy of an introductory letter containing their personal data. The court found that religious law restrictions on data access are only valid if they comply with GDPR, and a simple overview of data is insufficient for verifying processing legality. This decision emphasizes the primacy of EU law over religious data protection rules when they conflict with GDPR.","German court orders Jehovah's Witnesses to provide former members GDPR access to personal data.","Help VG Berlin - 42 K 25\u002F25: Difference between revisions From GDPRhub Jump to:navigation, search Newer edit →VisualWikitext Revision as of 12:01, 10 August 2026 view source Av (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators123 edits Tag: Decisions [1.0]Newer edit → (No difference) Revision as of 12:01, 10 August 2026 VG Berlin - 42 K 25\u002F25 Court: VG Berlin (Germany) Jurisdiction: Germany Relevant Law: Article 15(1) GDPR Article 15(3) GDPR Article 91(1) GDPR Decided: 17.06.2026 Published: 08.08.2026 Parties: National Case Number\u002FName: 42 K 25\u002F25 European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:DE:VGBE:2026:0617.42K25.25.00 Appeal from: Appeal to: Unknown Original Language(s): German Original Source: VIS Berlin (in German) Initial Contributor: av A court ordered a congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses to provide its former members access to their personal undergoing processing by handing over a copy of an introductory letter that was sent to the members' new congregation. 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 Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation (the controller) sent another congregation an introductory letter containing the personal data of two members (the data subjects) who were changing congregations from the controller to the recipient. The data subjects did not receive a copy of this letter despite their request. They filed a complaint with the DPA in July 2023, stating that their right of access under the GDPR had been violated. The controller argued that providing access to the introductory letter would undermine confidentiality required by religious law. According to the controller, restricting the right of access was necessary to allow the elders of the congregations to fulfill their biblical mandate to care for the members as shepherds of God’s flock. The controller only provided the data subjects a short list of information about them contained in the letter. The DPA dismissed the complaint as unfounded in May 2024. It held that the restriction to the right of access was justified under Article 91(1) and the national Jehovah’s Witnesses Data Protection Act (DSGJZ), as providing access would jeopardise the religious community’s ability to fulfill its mission. The data subjects filed a lawsuit before the Administrative Court of Berlin in May 2024, claiming the right to obtain a copy of the introductory letter. Holding The court ordered the controller to provide the data subjects access to their personal data undergoing processing by handing over a copy of the introductory letter addressed to the data subjects’ new congregation. First, the court referred to the principle of primacy of EU law and held that Article 91(1) gives precedence to the data protection rules of religious associations or communities only insofar as these rules comply with the GDPR. Second, the court concluded that the data subjects were entitled to receive the requested copy pursuant to Article 15(1) in conjunction with Article 15(3) GDPR. The court considered a merely abstract overview of the processed data insufficient for verifying the lawfulness of processing. Furthermore, it assumed that the whole letter contained personal data and must therefore be disclosed in its entirety. 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. Court: Berlin Administrative Court, 42nd Chamber Date of Decision: June 17, 2026 Case Number: 42 K 25\u002F25 ECLI: ECLI:DE:VGBE:2026:0617.42K25.25.00 Document Type: Judgement Source: Legal Provisions: Art. 15 EUV 2016\u002F679, Art. 91 EUV 2016\u002F679, § 8(1)(4) DSGJZ Operative Part The defendant is ordered, upon annulment of the decision of the Data Protection Supervisory Authority for Jehovah’s Witnesses dated May 27, 2024, to provide the plaintiffs with information regarding the plaintiffs’ personal data processed by the defendant by providing a copy of the introductory letter prepared on the occasion of the plaintiffs’ transfer from J… to L… effective July 1, 2023. The defendant shall bear the costs of the proceedings. The judgement is provisionally enforceable with respect to costs. The defendant may avert enforcement by posting security in the amount of 110% of the amount enforceable pursuant to the judgement, unless the plaintiffs first post security in the amount of 110% of the respective amount to be enforced. An appeal is permitted. Facts 1 The plaintiffs seek information from the defendant under data protection law in the form of the provision of a copy of an introductory letter. 2 The plaintiffs are members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. As of July 1, 2023, they transferred from the Jehovah’s Witnesses congregation in O… to the congregation in L…. For this reason, the transferring congregation issued a so-called “introduction letter” to the receiving congregation. 3 Despite their request, the plaintiffs did not receive a copy of the introduction letter. They therefore contacted the defendant’s data protection supervisory authority in a letter dated July 25, 2023, signed only by Plaintiff No. 1, and complained that their right to information had not been fulfilled. 4 The L… Congregation replied with a letter addressed to Plaintiff No. 1) dated August 18, 2023. Religious law stipulates that in the event of a change of congregation, a letter of introduction must be sent by the elders of the former congregation to the elders of the new congregation. This enables the elders to fulfill their biblical mandate to care for the preachers as shepherds of God’s flock. For the exercise of their pastoral duties, it is essential that elders be able to rely on confidentiality in their collaboration. A right of access could deter elders from fulfilling their pastoral mandate in all sincerity. For this reason, it is not provided for in the defendant’s religious law. However, to the extent that this does not jeopardize the spiritual and pastoral mission, - Page 1 of 6 - disclosure of the personal data contained in the introductory letter is permissible. This procedure is carried out in accordance with state data protection laws. The introductory letters concerning the plaintiffs contain the following data regarding the plaintiffs: “No attendance at meeting places; well-thought-out and fre- quent comments; no ministry position; no duties in the LuDZ; not on trolley duty; assigned to ÖZB, long-haul driving duty, and port duty.” 5 Further correspondence followed, in particular with the Central Europe branch office of the defendant, which assumed that the right to information had been satisfied by the letter from the L… congregation. 6 The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on May 15, 2024. In support of their claim, they essentially argue that the defendant is attempting to rely on biblical interpretations to conceal its own misconduct. By doing so, it is in violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). 7 On May 27, 2024, the Jehovah’s Witnesses Data Protection Authority issued a decision addressed to Plaintiff No. 1, in which it dismissed his complaint as unfounded. In support of its decision, it stated that the defendant is subject to regulations within the meaning of Art. 91(1) of the GDPR. The right of access (Art. 15 of the GDPR) is fully guaranteed by § 9(1) of the Jehovah’s Witnesses Data Protection Act (DSGJZ) in accordance with the following paragraphs. Pursuant to § 9(3)(1) in conjunction with § 8(1)(4) of the DSG- JZ, the right of access does not apply if providing the information would jeopardize the fulfillment of the religious community’s mission. In the present case, the rights of the elders as authors of the introductory letter must be taken into account. Without the restriction on the right of access, they could ","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Findex.php?title=VG_Berlin_-_42_K_25\u002F25&diff=52649&oldid=0","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Fimages\u002F4\u002F4c\u002FCourts_logo1.png","2026-08-10T12:01:18+00:00","2026-08-10T14:00:13.339739+00:00",7,[18,21],{"name":19,"type":20},"GDPR","product",{"name":22,"type":20},"DSGJZ","c5c77cdb-f7d7-4990-9436-c81dcbff1163",{"id":23,"icon":25,"name":26,"slug":27},null,"Policy","policy",[29,33,38],{"category":30},{"id":31,"icon":25,"name":19,"slug":32},"3f0f8451-91df-4b6c-9a73-ef3b2509b7f1","gdpr",{"category":34},{"id":35,"icon":25,"name":36,"slug":37},"53f9c4b6-8bc6-4964-9169-d09e5cd41d72","Compliance","compliance",{"category":39},{"id":23,"icon":25,"name":26,"slug":27},[]]