Since August 2022, users are capable of reaching all entries in the association, commercial, cooperative and partnership register worldwide without restrictions through the Handle Register. Day platform. Not all such affected people, because sensitive personal data can also be seen independently. Thilo Weichrt, former-Detta Protection Officer of Shleswig-Holstein, so was drawn before the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) and in June 2024 it was the right that their data should be seen limited after only 20 years. But months later, these are still available, as the federal-state does not come for the judiciary pots and technical losses in the comprehensive clerk. Sofurt complained: “If the government’s ‘digital only’ seems to be kept on the net regardless of everything, it does not work well for citizens.”
Advertisement
In contrast, the Civil Rights Activists were the chairman of the German Association for Data Protection (DVD) from 1993 to 2004 and are still active on the board. In one Valid report In December 2022, he came to the conclusion that all the time the disintegrated publication of data about all club board members included sensitive identity data such as the date of birth or home address, was highly suspected under the Constitutional and European law. DVD launched a public campaign at the same time for these interventions in privacy. Witch also defended himself and asked the Bon District Court and the North Rhine-WestFeli’s Justice Administration to abolish the worldwide publication of their data as the Data Protection Act in January 2023.
The responsible court lacks technical possibilities
Only BGH compulsorily weed under the law after running through examples and complaints. Meanwhile there is no need to remove irrelevant data immediately, Karlsuhe judges ruled (AZ :: II e.g. 10/23In the event of an objection to one of the affected people, judicial administration can spread controversial information only when an applicant is reliable. It is as follows that data about the work of the old DVD board will have to disappear from the internet at least.
The plaintiff regularly investigated whether the responsible NRW Authority fulfills the Supreme Judge system. After this, there was no case yet after eight months, he complained to the district court responsible in Bonn and then only got only one vague explanation in the context of late notice: the lack of technical possibilities and requirements for the decision in the register court BGH was technically implemented in countries of the countries. Therefore, the “procedural care center from the local side” was commissioned with technical implementation. Even the regular reminder of the district court “had no conclusion on the current status of the procedure”. Wechrt is unable to do a single document “from the” speechless “that the judiciary”. It should not be transparent, not citizens, but the state.
(OLB)
