Just for info: Deutsch und Englisch sind die beiden zulässigen Sprachen im Forum der BfDI.
Has anybody heard of other cases regarding a case of “State liability claim for non-implementation and violation of the GDPR” in the EU ? Any other sources on hand ?
THE EU DEMANDING TIMELY COMPENSATION UNDER EU LAW
The GDPR does not allow Member States like the Federal Republic of Germany or private controllers to delay accountability indefinitely. It does not permit years of inaction. It does not tolerate situations where individuals are left to absorb the consequences of systemic failures while institutions take no meaningful steps to repair the damage.
Any German data protection authority that restricted complaints to written forms or email — while excluding personal appearance, oral statements, telephone access, or postal mail — violated:
German Law
- Art. 3(1) GG – equal access to state institutions
- §§ 24–28 VwVfG – right to be heard, right to oral record
- UN‑CRPD – accessibility obligations
**EU Law **
- Art. 41 EU Charter – right to good administration
- Art. 47 EU Charter – right to an effective remedy
- Art. 21 EU Charter – non‑discrimination
- Art. 51 GDPR – accessible supervisory authorities
- Art. 57 GDPR – duty to facilitate complaints
- Art. 12 GDPR – transparent, accessible communication
- Art. 298 TFEU – open, efficient administration
- European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour – accessibility + responsiveness standards
State liability for intentional, systematic violations of fundamental rights by the German State.
- Intentional breach of constitutional obligations by Germany
- Intentional breach of official duties by the German State
- Structural state failure by Germany
- Systemic violation of fundamental rights by the German State
- Qualified breach of EU law by Germany (triggering Francovich state liability)
So if two of the 44 DPA´s in GERMANY (reunited since Oct 1990) prohibit access in person they violate:
1. Personal appearance (Persoenliches Erscheinen)
- Physical presence at the authority
- Right to present facts orally
- Right to request an oral record (Niederschrift)
- Protected by:
- Art. 3(1) GG (equal access)
- §§ 24, 25, 28 VwVfG (right to be heard, right to oral statements)
2. In‑person appointments (Vorsprache / Terminvereinbarung)
- Scheduled meetings
- Walk‑in access during public hours
- Mandatory for equal treatment
- Cannot be abolished by internal policy
3. Oral statements for the record (Muendliche Niederschrift)
- Citizen dictates complaint orally
- Authority must record it
- Authority must provide a copy
- Explicitly guaranteed in German administrative law
4. Telephone communication (Telefonische Entgegennahme)
- Filing a complaint by phone
- Clarifying facts by phone
- Requesting procedural explanations
- Required under principles of accessibility and non‑discrimination
5. Written communication by postal mail (Briefpost)
- Standard letters
- Registered mail
- Hand‑delivered mail
- Cannot be refused under any circumstances
6. Fax (Telefax)
- Still a legally valid submission method in Germany
- Fax refusal = unlawful restriction of access
7. Email without form requirements (E‑Mail formlos)
- Simple email
- Without signature requirements
- Without mandatory forms
- GDPR prohibits limiting complaints to specific formats
8. Email with qualified electronic signature (QES)
- Optional, not mandatory
- Authorities must accept it if offered
9. Accessible communication for persons with disabilities
(Required under UN‑CRPD, EU Charter, and German disability law)
- Telephone relay services
- Assisted communication
- Barrier‑free access
- Alternative formats upon request
10. Representation by third parties (Vertretung / Bevollmaechtigte)
- Lawyers
- Consumer protection groups
- Authorized private individuals
• • Authorities must accept submissions from representatives
This means German DPA´s must all grant those rights equally - correct ???
I did not know what or who SCHUFA was- I did not know them- they did not know me. And all of a sudden I live in a state of German terror. Just like in the good old days when “Adolf Schicklgruber” was their beloved Fuehrer. What should have ended 1945 did continue as legacy in the power and control of private SCHUFA HOLDING AG and their data terror supported by every single civil servant have turned Germany into a “ dystopian monocratic sham democracy.” A German state of dystopian digital data terror.
The following comparison exposes the “Data Terror” cycle—from early legal pushbacks and European breakthroughs for privacy to the latest judicial restoration of the SCHUFA’s power to hold a person’s financial past hostage.
YearRuling & CourtCore Impact: "Control vs. Freedom"Tendency2014**
VGH Kassel 2014 10 B 1397/13
The Oversight Shield: In a landmark fight led by the Data Protection Commissioner (HBDI), the court ruled that SCHUFA cannot simply propagate unproven or disputed claims. Disputed data is “poisonous” and must be neutralized. It established that the state’s duty to protect citizens from false financial branding outweighs corporate interests.
PRO CITIZEN****2023
EuGH (EU Court of Justice Luxembourg) C-634/21, C-26/22
Cracking the Monopoly: The EU’s highest court dealt a massive blow to “Data Terror” by slashing storage for insolvency records from 3 years to 6 months. It also attacked the “Black Box” scoring system, ruling that an algorithm shouldn’t dictate a human’s life without transparency and human oversight. PRO CITIZEN****2025
**BGH (Federal Court of Justice) Karlsruhe I ZR 97/25
The Restoration of Power: In a devastating blow to consumer rights, the BGH ruled on Dec 18, 2025, that “settled” debts can still be stored for 3 long years. While the EU freed insolvency cases, the BGH gave SCHUFA the green light to continue branding people as “risks” for years after they paid their dues. A return to the corporate "Data Cage."
PRO SCHUFA
Do German courts - German data “protection” authorities just decide how they like OR is there any law and regulations they follow ???