The parties disagree about the intervention of the defendant in a privacy supervisory matter.

The plaintiff asked the Kreissparkasse ... ... ... repeatedly, his ... ... ... shared her personal data processed by him to übermitteln.3Die Kreissparkasse the applicant by letter of 30. July 2018 then with, to him in compliance with Art. 15 Abs. 1 and 2 to the Privacy Regulation (DS-ACE) such as § 34 the Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG) now convey its data (vgl. leaf 3 – 6 the court record, Conditioning the application). With a further letter of the same day, the Kreissparkasse told ... ... ... the plaintiff nor the credit rating his person with. By letter of 3. September 2018 the applicant approached again Kreissparkasse ... ... ... to the effect, that he considered the data submitted for not fully. He recognized at Kreissparkasse ... ... ... one concerned him historical data storage through the year 1988. He asked for a completion of the information from the 30. July 2018. Kreissparkasse ... ... ... replied by letter dated 2. October 2018, that the information from the 30. July 2018 all legal requirements fulfilled. The storage of credentials, and their non-extinction, as requested by the plaintiff, was especially kind. 17 DS-GMO abgedeckt.4Mit email from 30. October 2018 the plaintiff complained to the defendant about the Kreissparkasse ... ... ... because of the action in its Angelegenheit.5Das Bavarian State Office ... responded by letter dated 21. January 2019 and told, that would ... ... taken against the Kreissparkasse ... no action, because there is no privacy violation vorliege. Further claims against the savings bank to disclosure must follow the plaintiff in the civil courts. The letter from the defendant of 21. January 2019 contained a legal remedies:, according to which are levied against the decision within one month of its action kann.6Mit pleading of 9. February 2019, received in court on 12. February 2019, the plaintiff turned to the Administrative Court of Ansbach. The information provided by the Kreissparkasse ... ... ... was incomplete for him and partly incomprehensible, had he continued that at Kreissparkasse ... demand ... ..., I ... ... also responded after which the savings bank .... With him still remaining doubts were left. In particular, the stored data contained at Kreissparkasse ... ... ... his since 20 Years past Reisepass.7Dies contrary to the basic 39 for DS-GMO, according to which the retention period for personal data should be limited to the absolute minimum. Then was the Kreissparkasse ... ... ... not received. The procedure for the storage duration violated incidentally Art. 15 Abs. 1 BUCHST. d DS is GVO.8Bedenklich, when the Kreissparkasse ... ... ... no knowledge of the processing of electronic customer signatures have and the measures in question, and organizational nature, had transferred to a service provider. The short and flat rejection of his appeal by the defendant infringed essential regulatory objectives of the DS GVO.9Der order sought,the final release of the defendant from 21. January 2019 pick up and order the defendant, the disputed information from the Kreissparkasse ... ... ... – in particular as to the completeness and transparency – content to evaluate, the same use regulatory means to so far identified deficiencies of information to correct and, if necessary. to justify his objections conflicting test results content, the alternative, cancel the graduation announcement and to impose the Free State of Bavaria, against the obvious shortcomings of the disputed information from the Kreissparkasse ... ... ... supervisory means einzusetzen.10Der defendant replied by letter of 15. February 2019 and referred to the final release of 21. January 2019 and on a decision of the Berlin Administrative Court 28. January 2019 (THE. VG 1 The 1.19), which was also sent to the applicant by the court on his request. The Administrative Court of Berlin judiziert in this Decision, that it is in case of complaints after the DS-GMO (in conjunction with the Data Protection Act Berlin) to petitions handle.11In another document of 18. February 2019 referred the plaintiff to Article. 57 Abs. 1 BUCHST. the DS-GVO, after which the supervisory authority, the application of this Regulation (the DSGVO) have to monitor and enforce. The transparency requirement of Article. 12 DS-GMO was injured here, equally the principles of Art. 5 and 56 DS GVO.12Mit nachgereichtem pleading of 9. August 2019, received in court on 12. August 2019, the plaintiff reiterated its view, that the classification of his objections was too sweeping by the defendant with regard to the alleged he Punkte.13Das not definite yet ripe delete request would in turn with a notice by the defendant under Article. 57 Abs. 1 BUCHST. d i.V.m. Art. 58 Abs. 1 BUCHST. d DS GMOs are answered with little effort können.14Wegen to further details to this Court- and government Act and the minutes of the hearing on 8. August 2019 Reference.

Reasons

151. The action is zulässig.161.1. The administration's decision is due § 20 Abs. 1 Set 1 Federal Data Protection Act in the exercise of rights under Article 78 Sales 1 and 2 der Verordnung (I) 2016/679 (DS-ACE) given, because we have here a civil claim against the legally binding decision by a regulatory authority, and that the final release of the defendant from 21. January 2019. Even where the standards would constitute a legal subsidiary allocation for such cases, where not already by the Code of Administrative Procedure (Administrative Procedure) the administrative courts, here is already under § 40 Abs. 1 Set 1 opened the Code of Administrative Procedure administrative courts, because the applicant contests or against an action. Omission of the State Office ... of Bavaria and thus against any official act (vgl. Art. 78 DS-ACE) on publicly legal basis, without a public law dispute is not of a constitutional nature vorliegt.171.2. The action is admissible as a power suit. The applicant has provided a very comprehensive action request, namely in the pleading of 9. February 2019, supplemented by his desire in the pleading of 18. February 2019. Ultimately, he is doing it to the range of the content referral to the supervisory authority with his complaint and to regulatory required intervention of staltung he left to the discretion of the defendant in accordance with the legal opinion of the court stellt.18Der recital 143 says the DS-GMO, that is to perform a method for a supervisory authority "in accordance with the procedure right" of the Member State. The union legal foundations have the special provisions of § 20 BDSG (Federal Data Protection Act) guided, but the first points to the general provisions of Code of Administrative Procedure, § 20 Abs. 2 BDSG.19Beim disputed letter from the defendant of 21. January 2019 is it a by the administrative court in accordance with Article. 78 DS-GMO verifiable measure visibility, but not an administrative act within the meaning of Art. 35 BayVwVfG a regulatory nature, so not that the legal challenge, but the general performance claim is admissible. The applicant's request in the application shall be construed, § 88 VwGO.20Ein administrative act within the meaning of Art. 35 BayVwVfG is a unilateral measure ahead of a territorial support in the field of public law for a specific case, regulatory implications with visibility unfolds. Presently lack the regulatory nature of the final release of 21. January 2019.21Das letter from the defendant of 21. January 2019 is not a so-called. declaratory administrative act, So a decision with the binding determination of a legal relationship or consequent rights and obligations, to be determined with legal validity (vgl. BayVGH, B.v. 21.3.2002 – 24 For example, 01.592 -, juris). Here the applicant should be granted legal advice, but it should not interfere with binding determination i.S. of Art. 35 BayVwVfG disputed rights or obligations governed werden.22Zwar it comes for, whether an official letter contains a binding rule by administrative, on an interpretation of the correspondingly applicable in public law norms of §§ 133, 157 BGB an. Decisive is therefore not the inner will of the authority, but the declared intention, like him could understand the recipient at an objective assessment, where uncertainties are at the expense of the administration. Here the defendant is given merely indicates, that he considered the behavior of Kreissparkasse for rightful and recognizes no reason for a data protection regulatory required intervention, but not made known to, that in a legally uncertain situation, the property- and the law in this particular case determined by a binding declaration with binding effect as existing or not existing, concrete or. is individualized (s. ovg NRW, B.v. 29.9.2016 – 14 B 1056/16 -, juris).23Lack of an administrative act is the right to appeal:the defendant in the letter of 21. January 2019 incorrect. While it is correct and by Article. 77 Abs. 2 DS-GMO even offered, to inform the applicant of its possibility of an appeal. Those in the legal remedies:Month period included, however, would require an administrative, is not present. The applicant's request, however, is not limited to a specific administrative act of the defendant, but directed to a general regulatory required intervention (in the alternative claim), indicative of a power suit. Had the applicant seeks a concrete measure for the purposes of an administrative act by the defendant, So he had his complaint pursuant to Article. 77 DS-GMO directed to this effect to the supervisory authority, and should the defendant so they designed appeal rejected, the obligation action would come in the form of refusal countersued in question. Then the rejection of the complaint would qualify as an administrative, of the adoption of an administrative act to reject the case würde.24Für, that it is used to report a message to a supervisor after the DSGVO – like here – dealing with any administrative act, is the action for performance in the manner. 78 DSGVO permissible. The right of action under Article. 78 Abs. 1 DS-GMO detected thus also including the rejection or rejection of a complaint on the type. 77 DS-ACE (vgl. 143. Recital for DS-GMO, to reject or rejecting complaints). If the measure is requested by the supervisory authority, has a simple administrative action the subject, is the general action for performance which took exemplary form of action, so that complete legal protection is. Permissible subject matters all binding measures of a supervisory authority may be. Under legally binding i.d.S. not only to understand administrative acts, but all acts, have the visibility, therefore affect the rights of the data subject or of the person responsible i.S.d. DS-GMO may have. Such effects are at all levels of administrative proceedings denkbar.25Die legal opinion of the Berlin Administrative Court 28. January 2019 (THE. VG 1 The 1.19), which starts in case of complaints after the DS-GMO petitions, it goes too far. A petition which answers letter would in any case not an administrative within the meaning of § 42 Code of Administrative Procedure (BVerwG, B.v. 1.9.1976 – VII B 101.75 -, juris; common ground, no direct legal effect outside, but only the actual fulfillment of the obligation under Article. 17 GG; no bid the possibility of a legal challenge from Article. 19 Abs. 4 Set 1 GG). After the DS-GMO however, the citizen has not only a right to Verbescheidung, but if necessary. entitled to intervention by the supervisory authority (in discretionary reduction to zero, otherwise entitled to exercise discretion faultless), the result type. 58 DS-GMO comprehensive engagement skills has (i.d.R. In contrast to the petition addressed). The letter from the defendant of 21. January 2019 is not merely answering a Petition.261.3. It is for the plaintiff to bring proceedings under Article. 78 Abs. 1 DS-GMO against the rejection of the applicant's complaint under Article. 77 DS-ACE. The plaintiff is also entitled to bring proceedings in accordance with § 42 Abs. 2 Code of Administrative Procedure, because § 42 Abs. 2 Code of Administrative Procedure is analogous for standing according to the prevailing view apply to the power suit, since the legal guarantee of Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG then accesses, if a citizen is injured by a public authority in his subjective rights. but it is questionable, whether in addition to Art. 78 DS-ACE (Union law with primacy) § 42 Code of Administrative Procedure extent at all yet applicable, because the concern in public subjective legal positions represents a particular German admissibility of an action. Because in terms of measures of the kind. 58 DS-GMO, the applicant but also in terms of § 42 Code of Administrative Procedure could possibly be affected in his rights, Without this, the requirements of § 42 Code of Administrative Procedure met, so that the applicants in any case bring proceedings ist.271.4. Due to the presence of a power suit in the given process, no limitation period was too true. The indicative to a month time limit on legal remedies:in the completion notification of the defendant of 21. January 2019 is so far unrichtig.281.5. According to § 20 Abs. 5 Set 1 BDSG are the parties of a method according to § 20 Abs. 1 Set 1 BDSG the natural person as plaintiff as well as the supervisory authority as a defendant. The plaintiff is operator under § 20 Abs. 5 Set 1 No.. 1 BDSG. Defendant is the Bavarian State Office ... ... Although would be in accordance with § 78 Abs. 1 No.. 1 Code of Administrative Procedure to bring the action against the legal entity of the State Office, So here against the Free State of Bavaria. Priority to § 78 Code of Administrative Procedure, however, § 20 Abs. 5 Set 1 No.. 2 BDSG als lex specialis, according to which the Supervisory Authority is directly involved as a defendant. Consequently, there is a European Union law caused by the independence of the supervisory authority deviating federal law special regulation ago (including Mundil, in BeckOK, Privacy law, Wolff/Brink, 28. Edition, 1.5.2018, Rn. 5 to § 20 BDSG, Lapp, in Gola/Heckmann, BDSG, comment, 13. Edition 2019, Rn 12 to § 20 BDSG, Recover in Kühling / Buchner, DS-ACE, BDSG, 2. Edition 2018, Rn 10 to § 20 BDSG, a. A. probably only Frenzel in Paal / Pauly, DS-GVO / BDSG, 2. Edition 2018, Rn. 10 to § 20 BDSG, no reason given). The coming here to express EU law prescribed independence of the supervisory authority would otherwise, if it is the letter of 21. January 2019 would have been an administrative act, cause, that according. § 20 Abs. 6 BDSG no preliminary proceedings stattfindet.291.6. In the present case, the court of a cargo of Kreissparkasse has ... ... ... apart. § 20 Abs. 5 BDSG determined, that natural or legal persons plaintiff or applicant (§ 20 Abs. 5 Set 1 Nummer 1 BDSG) and regulators are defendant or respondent (§ 20 Abs. 5 Set 1 Nummer 2 BDSG). In § 20 Abs. 5 Set 2 BDSG but set, that § 63 Nummer 3 and 4 Code of Administrative Procedure is not affected, as a result, Additional cargo that are possible. Although the purpose is a cargo of the process economics and right uniformity, in which case administrative by creating a legal challenge in the way. 78 DS-GMO and also the possibility, take legal action against those responsible even, the existence of contradictory judicial decisions will be taken for the same facts by the legislature in department. The process of the data subject to the supervisory authority, the process if necessary. the person responsible (here it would be the Kreissparkasse ... ... ...) against the supervisory authority of the process of the person concerned against those responsible have different causes of action, because as the head of claim against the Authority due to the wide Resolution- and selecting discretion of the supervisory authority normally only a regulatory required intervention – like here – directed, whereas a regular application for annulment in the process of the person responsible for an arrangement of the supervisory authority a concrete measure betrifft.30Es here is not a case of necessary additional cargo within the meaning of § 65 Abs. 2 Code of Administrative Procedure ago, because the required for necessary additional cargo direct intervention would ... ... given the legal position of Kreissparkasse ... Not Yet by a judicial obligation of the defendant to regulatory intervention, but only through this intervention itself, So the implementation of the supervisory authority, Kreissparkasse ... ... ... would be directly affected. Kreissparkasse ... ... ... is therefore not involved in the relationship in dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant in such a, that the decision may also about her fare against only uniform, how § 65 Abs. 2 Code of Administrative Procedure it demands. this is comparable to the obligation of a lawsuit against the builder building authority intervene against the neighbors, where well-established case law, according to the neighbor is not necessary be summoned, even if he should have brought an action against the construction project during the administrative procedure objections (vgl. instead of many BVerwG, B.v. 20.5.1992 – 1 B 22.92 -, NVwZ-RR 1993, 18).31The conditions for the application of a simple additional cargo within the meaning of § 65 Abs. 1 Code of Administrative Procedure, however, are given, may be affected here because legal interests Kreissparkasse ... ... ..., and the decision can in this administrative case affect the legal interests of Kreissparkasse. The court saw a cargo, which is at the discretion of the court, from, firstly because both parties (Plaintiff and defendant) rejected at the hearing an additional cargo of Kreissparkasse ... ... ..., since the Court had already to consider the possible infringement of the rights of Kreissparkasse ex officio and tested, and above all, because the court had to go out at any stage of the process it, that the defendant to a measure i.S.d. Art. 58 DS-GMO against the Kreissparkasse ... ... ... to condemn ist.321.7. The jurisdiction of the Administrative Court of Ansbach arises mainly from § 45 Code of Administrative Procedure and place of § 20 Abs. 3 Federal Data Protection Act as a special provision to § 52 Code of Administrative Procedure. According to § 20 Abs. 3 BDSG (vgl. also art. 78 Abs. 3 DS-ACE) is suitable for process according to § 20 Abs. 1 Set 1 BDSG – like here – the administrative court territorial jurisdiction, the district in which the supervisory authority has its seat, therefore, the Administrative Court Ansbach.332. The admissible action is unfounded, since the applicant no claim against the defendant for further referral and review his complaint under Article. 78 Abs. 2 DS-GVO i.V.m. Art. 57 DS-GM still has a claim to regulatory required intervention by the defendant against the Kreissparkasse ... ... ... in accordance with Article. 58 DS GVO.342.1. The role of the Art. 57 DS-GMO is opened. according to the defendant Art. 78 Abs. 2 DS GMOs in conjunction with Article. 57 Abs. 1 BUCHST. f DS-GMO verified the applicant's complaint to an appropriate extent and where the applicant advance notice. is Any further claim of the plaintiff not ersichtlich.35Mit the Bavarian State Office ... the competent data protection supervisory authority has acted. The scope of the DS-GMO was opened. Kreissparkasse ... ... ... was called. Responsible for personal as part of the processing and storage of data by the applicant (Art. 4 No.. 2 DS-ACE) as part of a year since 1985 lasting relationship. These are all also personal details of the applicant, Art. 4 No.. 1 DS-ACE. In this data processing and storage, the applicant had agreed, Art. 6 Abs. 1 Set 1 DS-ACE (vgl. Art. 7 and Art. 4 No.. 11 DSGVO). Consent was freiwillig.36Art. 57 Sales 1 BUCHST. a and f DS-GMO, after which the defendant monitor and enforce the application of this regulation needs as well as to deal with complaints of a person concerned, examine the subject of the complaint to an appropriate extent, and the complainant within a reasonable time on the progress and outcome of the investigation must inform, was respected by the defendant to the satisfaction of the Court. Although you can from Article. 57 DS-GMO alone, a pure standard task, obtained no public subjective rights of the person concerned. Art. 57 Abs. 1 Literally f DS GMOs is submitted only to the supervisory authority and creates per se any subjective public rights of those affected. The duty of the Art. 57 Abs. 1 BUCHST. f DS GMOs but in the overall context of the DS-GMO heavy weight. Art. 57 Abs. 1 BUCHST. f DS-GMO contains dedicated requirements on the method and the periphery thereof, the above type. 78 Abs. 2 DSGVO can lead to a legal right of the person concerned (so probably Kühling / Buchner / Boehm, DS-ACE, 2. ed. 2018, Art. 57 Rn. 12: "The existence of a right similar", "Because the provision in relation to Article. 78 Abs. 2" you can see), consequently, without prejudice to any data subject to an administrative or otherwise extrajudicial Rechtbehelfs has the right to an effective judicial remedy, if under Articles. 55 f. DS-GMO competent authority does not address a complaint or the person concerned within three months of the progress or the result of in accordance with Article. 77 DS-GMO objections against them has notified. Gemäß Art. 57 Abs. 1 BUCHST. f DS-GMO has the defendant the plaintiff within a reasonable time on the progress and outcome of the investigation by letter of 21. January 2019 informed, while respecting Article. 78 Abs. 2 DS-ACE, which the complainant will be informed no later than three months on the state muss.37Die differentiate the DS-GMO task norm, Art. 57 DS-ACE, and authority standards, Art. 58 DS-ACE, similar to the breakdown in security- and police law. In the area of ​​DS-GMO but there is a special feature: Art. 57 DS-ACE, the already non-exhaustive tasks normalized (vgl. Art. 57 Abs. 1 BUCHST. in) is not comparable to type in its comprehensiveness, for example,. 2 Bavarian police task Act (BayPAG), because he decidedly in the task assignment turns off to a "reasonableness". The treatment of individual complaints as this is governed by EU law restrictively (vgl. also recital 141 Set 2 to DSGVO). While it is one of the top priorities of the defendant, Complaints from those affected by type. 77 edit DS-GMO, especially for supervisors (similar to the police) Reports and complaints of citizens to perform their duties are essential. However, Article. 57 Abs. 1 BUCHST. f DS-GMO undoubtedly with the phrase "reasonable extent" on the resources and capabilities of the regulatory authorities consideration. The adequacy of the investigation also depends on the severity of the interference with the rights of the Betroffenen.382.2. The plaintiff is not entitled to intervene in the manner behördliches. 58 DS-ACE. Such already ruled out, therefore,, because of referral and examination under the kind. 57 DS-GMO no evidence has shown, the intervention by the manner. 58 DS-ACE nahelegten. A data protection law violation by the person responsible has not imposed. The final release of the defendant from 21. January 2019 making content not beanstanden.39Art. 58 DS-GMO regulates the relationship supervisory authority to the person responsible data. A claim for regulatory required intervention of the person concerned is similar to the security- and police law (vgl. BVerwGE 11, 95, 97) recognize in principle, However, only in case of (potential) Violation of their own rights and (cumulative) a reduction of discretion to zero, so therefore most frequently only a subjective public right to faultless discretion besteht.40Neben the selection discretion exists for the defendant also in terms of the decision to take action, a motion for judgment (vgl. the word "permitted" in Art. 58 Abs. 1 and 2 DS-ACE). Although, Article. 58 Abs. 2 DS-GMO a bunch of different, in some cases far-reaching measures, the defendant to the commandments is. The supervisory authority decides, whether, for example, by the person responsible in accordance with Article. 58 Abs. 1 BUCHST. a an opinion demands, spot checks pursuant to Article. 58 Abs. 1 BUCHST. f undertakes, or, as here decides on the facts already due to the produced by the applicant information and copies. The applicant has in principle entitled to safeguard the transparency requirement of Art. 12 DS-ACE, of access in accordance with Art. 15 DS-ACE, thereon, and in accordance with Art. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. a DS-GMO his personal data lawfully, in good faith and in a comprehensible way for him processed werden.41Der applicant would otherwise even in the presence of a detected or probable violation of the DS-GMO however, only a right to flawless exercise of discretion in terms of a measure of the defendant under Article. 58 DS-ACE, but not entitled to certain regulatory measures against the Kreissparkasse (including Gola / Nguyen, DS-ACE, 2. ed. 2018, Art. 57 Rn. 10 m.w.N.; except in the case of discretionary reduction to zero), and then under Art. 58 DS-GMO, the supervisory authority as mentioned a wide Resolution- and selection of discretion has and type. 58 Abs. 2 DS-GMO will meet with the different measures stepped the principle of proportionality (vgl. Art. 58 Abs. 2 BUCHST. a, b, d as milder measures in comparison with Article. 58 Abs. 2 BUCHST. f DS-GVO, so Ingold JuS 2018, 1214, 1217).42A discretionary reduction to zero can only be considered, when a data protection infringement is close or. itself must impose, d.h. there must be facts, let the breach of data protection rules seem likely and such failure is of a severity, can appear as required the intervention by the supervisory authority. is of no claim here against the backdrop of this scale for intervention on the type. 58 assumed DS-GMO: The objections of the plaintiff against the approach of the defendant in the pleadings and at the hearing can not succeed on the merits. Kreissparkasse ... ... ... has written extensively responded to the requests of the plaintiff, issued and all kinds of information also confirmed their readiness to supply additional information. Therefore, it is not so, that the claimant, as alleged, not completely gets its data. In his request for a completion of the information from the 30. July 2017 Kreissparkasse ... ... ... him by letter of 2. October 2018 made as requested more information, wherein the information from the 30. July 2018 already satisfied the legal requirements. It is not clear, which here is a violation of the transparency requirement of Article. 12 DS GMOs should be. The procedure and practice of Kreissparkasse ... ... ... correspond to the recital 39 for DS-GMO, since the processing of personal data of the applicant was carried out lawfully and in good faith and to provide information to the plaintiff under Article. 15 DS-ACE correct war. Gemäß Art. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. a DS-GMO are his personal data lawfully, processed in good faith and in a comprehensible way for him. The wrong profession name of the applicant was part of the Kreissparkasse in application of Art. 5 Abs. 1 BUCHST. d DS-GMO corrected immediately. The storage of the last pass of the plaintiff 1988, at the grounds of the contract 1985 valid, submitted by the applicant, legitimacy was, In particular no violation of Article. 15 Abs. 1 BUCHST. DS-mail GVO, but justified by the nature. 17 Abs. 1 BUCHST. the DS-GVO, since the Kreissparkasse ... ... have available for access by the applicant to his data the basis of legitimacy ... should(to). Otherwise results from the recital 39 for DS-GMO. It is also not necessary, that the Kreissparkasse ... ... ... has its own staff knowledge of the processing of electronic customer signatures. It is customary and data protection law both correctly and safely, when companies use third parties for additional services, as long as they data protection law – like here – ensure data security; at least persist for a contrary assumption no Anhaltspunkte.III.43Die action is therefore with the financial consequences of § 154 Abs. 1 Code of Administrative Procedure abzuweisen.44Die decision on the provisional enforceability follows § 167 VwGO i.V.m. §§ 708 ff. Code of Civil Procedure.