News · GDPRhub EN LLM context A cited markdown file you can paste into your AI assistant (ChatGPT, Claude, a RAG or project knowledge base) to ground it in this document. Contains: this document’s text, its sections with their topics, and the full text of every law provision it applies. Everything links back to its source on overview.legal — legal information, not advice.

BGH - I ZR 97/25 (This appears to be a legal citation and doesn't require translation.)

Storage Limitation Retention Period Legitimate Interest Controllers Law Enforcement
Jan 7, 2026
Summary

Facts: The court has ruled that the data retention period for information regarding completed payment defaults by private credit agencies is not automatically limited by rules for deleting data from debtor registers, and that codes of conduct based on the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) can serve as a guideline when balancing interests in accordance with Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR. The Federal Court of Justice has determined that the maximum retention period for data relating to a payment default that has already been resolved by a credit information agency is not limited by national rules for deleting data from a public debtor register.

How it connects

References

Related across sources

Enforcement HDPA (Greece) examines deletion request from National Registry of Undesirable Aliens HDPA (Greece) Case Law GC - T-318/24 Gereral Court Guidance Art. 29 WP Guidelines on GDPR transparency requirements (WP260 rev.01) EDPB Literature HOW GDPR TREATS AUTOMATED DECISION-MAKING Journal Scientific and Applied Research Guidance EDPB Annual Report 2023 EDPB Case Law Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2024.#Endemol Shine Finland Oy.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Itä-Suomen hovioikeus.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of personal data – Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – Articles 2, 4, 6, 10 and 86 – Data held by a court relating to the criminal convictions of a natural person – Oral disclosure of such data to a commercial company on account of a competition organised by that company – Concept of ‘processing of personal data’ Court of Justice of the European Union

Full text

Facts: The court ruled that the retention period for data regarding completed payment defaults by private credit information agencies is not automatically limited by rules for deleting data from a debtor file, and that codes of conduct based on the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) can serve as a guideline for balancing interests in accordance with Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR. The Federal Court of Justice has determined that the maximum retention period for data regarding a payment default that has already been resolved by a credit information agency is not limited by national rules for deleting data from a public debtor file. Summary in English: The responsible party, SCHUFA Holding AG, operates a credit information agency that collects and stores information about payment defaults reported by its contractual partners, with the aim of assessing the creditworthiness of consumers. The responsible party, SCHUFA Holding AG, operates a credit information agency that collects and stores information about payment defaults reported by its contractual partners, with the aim of assessing the creditworthiness of consumers. --- This content has been automatically translated using machine translation. The original version is available in the source language. --- This content was automatically translated using machine translation. The original version is available in the source language.

Similar Content