Overview: Illegally Obtained Evidence in Injunctive Proceedings and Its Implications
In civil injunction proceedings, the manner in which evidence is obtained plays a decisive role in the prospects of success for the claim. The Berlin-Wedding Local Court recently dealt with the question of the extent to which photographs taken without the required consent of the persons concerned are admissible as evidence and whether legal claims can be based on them (<a href="https://urteile.news/AG-Berlin-Wedding21-C-5924Unzulaessige-Begruendung-einer-Unterlassungsklage-mit-unzulaessig-aufgenommenen-Fotos~N34542″>AG Berlin-Wedding, Judgment of 13.11.2024, Case No. 21 C 59/24).
Photographs as Evidence in the Light of Data Protection and Personality Rights
Significance of Consent and Legal Admissibility
Pictures of individuals or their private surroundings are afforded special protection under the provisions of the Art Copyright Act (KUG) as well as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Taking a photo without consent may constitute an infringement of the right to one’s own image and general personality rights. In the specific case, the person who took the photos did so without the necessary authorization. This led the court to declare the use of these photographs as evidence inadmissible in civil proceedings.
Balancing Interest in Evidence with Personality Rights
The ruling makes clear that, even in civil proceedings, the prohibitions of data collection under data protection law and general personality rights must be taken into account. A party’s interest in evidence does not justify every intrusion into the rights of the opposing party. In particular, a balance of interests must be struck in favor of personality rights when photographs are taken secretly or against the express wishes of the person concerned. If there is a violation of personality rights, evidence so obtained is generally inadmissible.
Procedural Consequences of Illegally Obtained Photographs
Exclusion of Evidence and Dismissal of the Claim
In the case under discussion, the court expressly ruled that photos taken without consent are subject to an exclusion of evidence. Consequently, they could not be used to support the sought injunctive relief. The claim was dismissed for lack of a permissible basis since the decisive allegations were not proven by admissible evidence.
Significance for the Application for Injunctions
The decision illustrates that the manner in which evidence is obtained must be carefully examined at an early stage of the proceedings. The use of illegally obtained images may not only result in claims failing but may also, in individual cases, trigger counterclaims under data protection and civil law.
Personality Rights of Third Parties and Data Protection Aspects in Civil Proceedings
Rights of Third Parties in the Collection of Evidence
The general right of personality, codified in Art. 2 para. 1 in conjunction with Art. 1 para. 1 GG, protects against unauthorized image capture. In addition, the provisions of the GDPR are relevant if the persons depicted are identifiable. Without the permission of the depicted person or the existence of an overriding legitimate interest, the taking and distribution of photographs is usually inadmissible.
Impact on the Evidentiary Value in Civil Proceedings
Civil proceedings are governed by the principle of free assessment of evidence. However, evidence obtained through legal violations is subject to exclusion. As a result, the claimant’s submissions may be disregarded as “not provable,” which may render the case unsubstantiated or insufficient.
Consequences for Businesses and Private Individuals
Duties of Care When Documenting Potential Legal Violations
For companies and private individuals seeking to defend themselves against alleged legal violations or to enforce injunctive claims in their own name, the judgment imposes a clear obligation to respect third-party rights already during the evidence-gathering process. Not only material but also procedural disadvantages may arise, for instance, if the right to one’s own image or data protection law is not respected.
Relevance for the Practice of Investors, Companies, and High-Net-Worth Individuals
Especially in business settings, such as documenting breaches of contract, theft, or unfair competition, lawful evidence collection is essential. Inadequate or even unlawful gathering of evidence entails significant risks for legal enforcement.
Outlook and Recommendations
The decision by the Berlin-Wedding Local Court confirms existing principles regarding the inadmissibility of illegally obtained evidence in civil proceedings. Plaintiffs and claimants are required to observe personality rights and data protection requirements when presenting evidence, otherwise the effectiveness of the claim may be called into question.
Please note that court decisions are always case-specific and individual circumstances may be assessed differently. The legal process is also subject to continual development through judicial decisions.
For complex questions relating to legally sound evidence gathering, the protection of personality rights, or data protection aspects in connection with injunction proceedings, the experienced team of MTR Legal Rechtsanwalt is available if required.
