In its judgement of 9 May 2025 (case no. 324 O 278/23), the Press Chamber of the Regional Court of Hamburg ruled that the operator of the legal database OpenJur is not liable for the publication of an incorrectly anonymised decision. The plaintiff concerned, a lawyer, had sued for damages under Art. 82 GDPR, among other things, after a decision by the Berlin Administrative Court had been available on the platform for months, together with his real name and information about his financial difficulties. However, the court saw no basis for a claim for damages under data protection law - in particular because concrete non-material damage had not been sufficiently demonstrated and OpenJur could not be accused of a breach of duty relevant under data protection law.
The court's reasoning with regard to the non-material damage claimed under Art. 82 para. 1 GDPR is particularly noteworthy. The court recognised that the publication of personal data constituted an interference with the right to control one's own data. However, this alone was not sufficient to justify a claim for compensation for non-material damage. Rather, it was necessary for the affected party to substantiate what the specific damage was, how it was caused by the breach of data protection law and what non-material damage they had actually suffered.
The court clarified that neither the possibility of reputational damage nor the abstract risk of losing a mandate sufficiently substantiate such damage without further evidence. The mere concern about one's own professional reputation is understandable, but does not constitute damage eligible for compensation under Art. 82 GDPR.
The judgement of the Hamburg Regional Court makes it clear:
1. a claim for non-material damages under Art. 82 GDPR requires concrete, demonstrable impairments.
Mere assumptions or abstract concerns are not sufficient - the damage must be substantiated and causally justified.
2. those who react quickly and effectively to data protection violations can create circumstances that mitigate liability.
OpenJur's swift anonymisation following notification was decisive for the rejection of a claim for compensation.