Residents of a shared house had complained to their landlady about their flatmate. The landlady then wrote to him with the following content: "Due to complaints about strong odors and vermin in the stairwell, we would like to carry out an inspection of your apartment. Our employee, Mr. K., will inspect the apartment on Thursday, 15 August 2019 at 10 am." During the inspection, the apartment was indeed found to be in a neglected condition.
The landlady then asked the flatmate to clear out and clean the apartment, which he did. However, he then demanded information from the landlady about which flatmate had allegedly complained about him. The landlady did not disclose the name for data protection reasons and suggested "letting the matter rest". The flatmate then sued. However, both the regional court and the higher regional court agreed with the landlady's assessment that she did not have to provide information about the name.
However, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) took a different view in this case, citing various reasons. One of them is as follows: "In order to [...] also assert possible rights against the whistleblower from whom the incorrect data originated and thus 'tackle the errors at the root', the plaintiff needs the information as to who provided the information. Since the statements 'strong odor nuisance and vermin in the stairwell' [...] are allegations that are detrimental to reputation, a claim [...] against the whistleblower for omission of the allegation is at least obvious in the case of the falsity of this allegation to be assumed here".
Source and further information: BGH/judgment of February 22, 2022 - VI ZR 14/21
© Fotolia
English