Case C-307/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2022 — FT v DW
Date: 2022-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data protection, data-processing law, medical data, personal data, physician, reprography








C_2022311EN.01000402.xml










16.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/4






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 May 2022 — FT v DW
(Case C-307/22)
(2022/C 311/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant and appellant on a point of law: FT

Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: DW

Questions referred







1.


Must the first sentence of Article 15(3) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), (1) read in conjunction with Article 12(5) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the controller (in the present case: the doctor providing treatment) is not obliged to provide the data subject (in the present case: the patient), free of charge, with a first copy of his or her personal data processed by the controller where the data subject does not request the copy in order to pursue the purposes referred to in the first sentence of recital 63 of the GDPR, namely to become aware of the processing of his or her personal data and to be able to verify the lawfulness of that processing, but pursues a different purpose — one which is not related to data protection but is legitimate (in the present case: to verify the existence of claims under medical liability law)?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative:






(a)


In accordance with Article 23(1)(i) of the GDPR, can a national provision of a Member State adopted prior to the entry into force of the GDPR also be regarded as a restriction of the right to be provided, free of charge, with a copy of the personal data processed by the controller, as provided for in the first sentence of Article 15(3) of the GDPR, read in conjunction with Article 12(5) thereof?










(b)


If Question 2(a) is answered in the affirmative: Must Article 23(1)(i) of the GDPR be interpreted as meaning that the rights and freedoms of others, as referred to therein, also include their interest in being relieved of the costs associated with the provision of a copy of data in accordance with the first sentence of Article 15(3) of the GDPR and other expenses incurred in making the copy available?










(c)


If Question 2(b) is answered in the affirmative: In accordance with Article 23(1)(i) of the GDPR, can national legislation which, in the context of the doctor-patient relationship, provides that the doctor always has a claim for reimbursement of expenses against the patient, irrespective of the specific circumstances of the individual case, where the doctor provides the patient with a copy of the patient’s personal data from the patient’s medical records be regarded as a restriction of the obligations and rights arising from the first sentence of Article 15(3) of the GDPR, read in conjunction with Article 12(5) thereof?














3.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative and Question 2(a), 2(b) or 2(c) is answered in the negative: In the context of the doctor-patient relationship, does the entitlement under the first sentence of Article 15(3) of the GDPR include entitlement to be provided with copies of all parts of the patient’s medical records containing the patient’s personal data, or does it extend only to the provision of a copy of the patient’s personal data as such, with the doctor who processes the data deciding the manner in which he or she compiles the data for the patient concerned?






(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).