A claim for access to information on the official telephone numbers of employees of job centres can be precluded both by a threat to the functioning of the authority and by the protection of the employees' personal data. This was decided by the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig on 20 October 2016.
The plaintiffs are requesting access to the service telephone lists of the defendant job centres in Cologne, Nuremberg-City, Berlin Mitte and Berlin Treptow-Köpenick on the basis of the Freedom of Information Act. The employees of these job centres cannot be reached directly by their clients by telephone. Calls are answered by specially set up service centres with uniform telephone numbers.
Insofar as the claims asserted by the plaintiffs were still in dispute, the actions were unsuccessful in the appeal instance. The Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeals against this decision.
The Münster Higher Administrative Court and the Munich Administrative Court have ruled in accordance with the relevant legal provisions that the ground for exclusion under section 3 no. 2 IFG applies to the detriment of the plaintiffs. According to this provision, the right to access information does not exist if the disclosure of the information could endanger public security. The protected interests of public security include individual rights such as health and property as well as the functioning and effective performance of state institutions. These are endangered if, on the basis of a prognostic assessment based on concrete facts, it can be expected with sufficient probability that the disclosure of the information will impair the object of protection. From this legal starting point, the Münster Higher Administrative Court and the Munich Administrative Court have both established facts that lead to such a risk. In particular, it consists of adverse effects on the efficient and expeditious fulfilment of the Job Centre's tasks, which may occur as a result of direct calls to the staff.
In the cases decided by the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg, the Job Centres Berlin Mitte and Berlin Treptow-Köpenick had already been obliged by the Administrative Court of Berlin to decide again on the plaintiffs' claims; before doing so, it must be determined whether the employees concerned consent to the access to information. In this respect, the administrative court rulings have become legally binding. In these proceedings, the job centres did not claim that there was a threat to public safety.
As confirmed by the Federal Administrative Court, Section 5 (1) sentence 1 of the Freedom of Information Act (IFG) precludes the further-reaching claim to the transmission of the telephone lists without the prior consent of the staff members concerned. According to this, access to personal data may only be granted without such consent if the applicant's interest in information outweighs the third party's interest worthy of protection in excluding access to information. The official telephone numbers are personal data covered by the scope of protection of the fundamental right to informational self-determination. § Section 5 (1) sentence 1 IFG is therefore based on a relative priority of data protection over the interest in information. Against this background, the interests asserted by the plaintiffs did not predominate in the cases decided.
BVerwG 7 C 20.15 - Judgment of 20 October 2016
Lower courts:
OVG Münster 8 A 2429/14 - Judgment of 16 June 2015
VG Cologne 13 K 498/14 - Judgment of 30 October 2014
BVerwG 7 C 23.15 - Judgment of 20 October 2016
Lower courts:
VGH Munich 5 BV 15.160 - Judgment of 05 August 2015
VG Ansbach AN 14 K 13.02149 - Judgment of 14 November 2014
BVerwG 7 C 27.15 - Judgment of 20 October 2016
Lower courts:
OVG Berlin-Brandenburg 12 B 22.14 - Judgment of 20 August 2015
VG Berlin 2 K 252.13 - Judgment of 05 June 2014
BVerwG 7 C 28.15 - Judgment of 20 October 2016
Lower courts:
OVG Berlin-Brandenburg 12 B 21.14 - Judgment of 20 August 2015
VG Berlin 2 K 54.14 - Judgment of 05 June 2014
Source: Press release of the Federal Administrative Court
Goldberg Attorneys at Law 2016
Attorney at Law Michael Ullrich, LL.M. (Information Law)
Specialist lawyer for information technology law
E-mail: info@goldberg.de
