# C_2022128EN.01000801.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2021 — Deutsche Wohnen SE v Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin

(Case C-807/21)

(2022/C 128/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Summary proceedings against: Deutsche Wohnen SE

Other party to the proceedings: Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 83(4) to (6) of the GDPR (1) to be interpreted as incorporating into national law the functional concept of an undertaking and the principle of an economic entity, as defined in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, as a result of which, by broadening the principle of a legal entity underpinning Paragraph 30 of the Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten (Law on administrative offences; ‘the OWiG’), proceedings for an administrative fine may be brought against an undertaking directly and a fine imposed without requiring a finding that a natural and identified person committed an administrative offence, if necessary, in satisfaction of the objective and subjective elements of tortious liability? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 83(4) to (6) of the GDPR (1) to be interpreted as incorporating into national law the functional concept of an undertaking and the principle of an economic entity, as defined in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, as a result of which, by broadening the principle of a legal entity underpinning Paragraph 30 of the Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten (Law on administrative offences; ‘the OWiG’), proceedings for an administrative fine may be brought against an undertaking directly and a fine imposed without requiring a finding that a natural and identified person committed an administrative offence, if necessary, in satisfaction of the objective and subjective elements of tortious liability?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is Article 83(4) to (6) of the GDPR to be interpreted as meaning that the undertaking must have intentionally or negligently committed the breach of an obligation vicariously through an employee (see Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2)), or is the objective fact of breach caused by it sufficient, in principle, for a fine to be imposed on that undertaking (‘strict liability’)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is Article 83(4) to (6) of the GDPR to be interpreted as meaning that the undertaking must have intentionally or negligently committed the breach of an obligation vicariously through an employee (see Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2)), or is the objective fact of breach caused by it sufficient, in principle, for a fine to be imposed on that undertaking (‘strict liability’)?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

---