No communication of personal data of hotel guests

The plaintiff from Halle rented a room in a hotel in Halle from 04.06.2010 to 07.06.2010 together with her then male companion with the first name Michael. The plaintiff used a hotel room on the second floor with this person during this period. On 14 March 2011, she gave birth to a boy named Joel. Her companion from the hotel in Halle could be the father of the child. The plaintiff wants information from the hotel management about the address and full name of her companion at the time. She herself is not in possession of any documents that could reveal the full name of her companion. The plaintiff needs the information in order to be able to assert child maintenance claims against her former companion. She is of the opinion that she is entitled to information from the hotel under the Federal Data Protection Act.

The hotel is of the opinion that there is no entitlement to the disclosure of the guests' personal data. During the period in question, a total of four male persons with the first name Michael had been guests at the hotel. Since the plaintiff could not describe the named person in more detail, it was not possible to clearly identify the persons in question.

The plaintiff brought an action against the hotel management before the Munich District Court for the provision of information. The competent judge dismissed the action. The plaintiff cannot demand the provision of the requested information.

The court finds that the right of the men concerned to informational self-determination and to their own protection of marriage and family outweighs the applicant's right to protection of marriage and family and to maintenance. In addition, the men concerned had the right to respect for private and intimate sphere, which protects against having to disclose sexual relations. According to this right, everyone can decide for themselves whether and in what form and to whom insight into their intimate sphere and their own life is granted. This right is affected by the disclosure of the data, because the possibility of a sexual relationship with the plaintiff as the mother of the child is ultimately irrefutably raised by this, according to the court. For the court, it is also clear that there is a danger that the data transfer would take place out of the blue. It was not possible for the plaintiff to present further circumstances that could narrow down the person liable to pay maintenance. The first name alone, whereby the applicant is not sure whether it is the only first name, and the number of floors are not sufficient for the necessary delimitation. It is also not possible to determine with certainty whether the name is actually the correct name of the person concerned.

Judgment of the Munich Local Court of 28.10.16, file number 191 C 521/16.
The judgment is legally binding.


Source: Press release of the Munich Local Court