A claim for the provision of a copy of emails is not sufficiently specific within the meaning of § 253 para. 2 no. 2 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) if the emails, of which a copy is to be provided, are not described with sufficient precision to unequivocally determine in enforcement proceedings which emails the judgment refers to.
The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a business lawyer from January 1 to January 31, 2019. In his lawsuit, he demanded, among other things, information about his personal data processed by the defendant, as well as the provision of a copy of this data pursuant to Art. 15 para. 3 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation; hereinafter GDPR). After the defendant provided the plaintiff with the requested information, the parties declared the legal dispute settled in this regard.
The Labor Court dismissed the claim for the provision of a copy of the plaintiff's personal data. The Regional Labor Court partially granted it and dismissed the remainder. It held that while the plaintiff had a right to receive a copy of his personal data that was the subject of the defendant's disclosure, he did not have a right to the additionally requested copies of his email correspondence or emails that specifically mentioned him by name.
The plaintiff's appeal against the partial dismissal of his claim was unsuccessful before the Second Senate of the Federal Labor Court. The Senate left open whether the right to obtain a copy pursuant to Art. 15 para. 3 GDPR can include the provision of a copy of emails. In any case, such a claim, assumed in favor of the plaintiff, must be asserted in court either with a sufficiently specific claim within the meaning of § 253 para. 2 no. 2 ZPO or, if this is not possible, by means of a staged action (Stufenklage) pursuant to § 254 ZPO. This was not the case here. If the defendant were ordered to provide a copy of the plaintiff's email correspondence and emails mentioning him by name, it would remain unclear which emails the defendant would have to provide copies of. The subject of the judgment would be the performance of a non-substitutable act within the meaning of § 888 ZPO, for which enforcement law does not provide that the debtor would have to affirm under oath that they had fully performed it.
Federal Labor Court, Judgment of April 27, 2021 – 2 AZR 342/20 –
Lower instance: Regional Labor Court of Lower Saxony, Judgment of June 9, 2020 – 9 Sa 608/19 –
Source: Press release of the Federal Labor Court of April 27, 2021
