Defeat for data protection lawsuit: Why OpenJur can continue to publish sensitive court data

Personal data online? Court says: freedom of the press beats data protection

It is a ruling with a signal effect: the Hamburg Regional Court has ruled that the OpenJur case law platform is not liable for errors made by the judiciary when it publishes non-anonymized court decisions. A lawyer had sued OpenJur because his full name, including his law firm address and financial situation, appeared in a publicly accessible decision of the Berlin Administrative Court - for almost a year, unredacted and available for all to see.

But the Hamburg judges now say: This is legally permissible. OpenJur is acting journalistically - and therefore enjoys special protection under the freedom of the press. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) does not fully apply in this case because the data processing was carried out "for journalistic purposes". A hard setback for the plaintiff - and a real liberation for the small, independent portal.

GDPR? Yes - but with exceptions for journalism

What at first glance appears to be a clear breach of data protection turns out to be a legal gray area with protective effect for media offerings. According to Art. 85 GDPR, EU member states may allow exceptions if the protection of personal data must be weighed against freedom of information and freedom of the press.

The Hamburg Regional Court did not consider OpenJur's activities to be simple data dumping, but rather "editorial work". The platform not only collects court rulings, it also draws up guiding principles, highlights relevant rulings and presents them in a journalistic format. This is enough for the judges to activate the safeguard clause - even if individual judgments are adopted without being checked.

No liability for judicial errors - and no compensation for damages

One thing is particularly clear: OpenJur is not liable for errors made by the courts. If a decision is published with insufficient anonymization - as in the case of the lawyer Olaf T. - then the responsibility lies with the court, not with the database that disseminates the decision.

OpenJur had subsequently anonymized the affected decision within 20 minutes of being notified by the plaintiff. But he wanted more: compensation under Art. 82 GDPR and a cease-and-desist declaration. He did not get either. Reasoning: The publication violated his personal rights - but OpenJur had safeguarded legitimate interests, as protected by Section 193 StGB (safeguarding legitimate interests).

In addition, no demonstrable damage was incurred. The delay in providing information about stored data was not serious enough to claim non-material damage.

Freedom of the press vs. privacy: a delicate balancing act

The ruling is a lesson in the tension between data protection and the public interest in information. On the one hand: the right to protection of sensitive data, especially in the case of professionally relevant information such as payment problems. On the other hand: the public's right to be informed about judicial and administrative processes.

The court has now clearly sided with the freedom of the press - at least as long as there is no gross negligence or abuse. OpenJur may therefore continue to adopt court decisions, even if they contain errors - as long as it reacts quickly when those affected lodge an objection.

The state must deliver

What was at stake was more than just a single case. If the plaintiff had won, it would have set a dangerous precedent - with potentially devastating consequences for all specialist legal portals and transparency projects.

But is the ruling fair? It shows how easy it can be for sensitive information to remain online for months simply because a court has sloppily anonymized it. Those affected are then left standing there - naked on the internet - and can often only react, not prevent. That is not in keeping with the times.

Courts are no longer allowed to anonymize "on the side". If you want transparency, you have to take responsibility - before data is published. Freedom of the press is a valuable asset, but it must not become a protection gap because authorities do not do their homework.