BGH: Court must grant unredacted file access in compulsory auctions under Art. 6(1)(e)

FEDERAL COURT OF JUSTICE DECISION V ZB 90/25 dated May 21, 2026 in the compulsory auction proceedings Reference work: yes BGHZ: no BGHR: yes JNEU: yes ZVG § 42; GDPR Art. 6 para. 1 subpara. 1 letter e In compulsory auction proceedings, § 42 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZVG) permits everyone to inspect the components of the case file listed therein, without the personal data contained therein having to be redacted (blacked out) beforehand. German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) § 299 para. 4 sentence 2, § 869; Section 42 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZVG) Persons inspecting files in compulsory auction proceedings may not publicly disseminate the contents of the files provided to them, either in whole or in part, or transmit or make them accessible to third parties for purposes unrelated to the proceedings. Federal Court of Justice (BGH), Decision of May 21, 2026 - V ZB 90/25 - Regional Court (LG) Bamberg Local Court (AG) Bamberg ECLI:DE:BGH:2026:210526BVZB90.25.0 - 2 - The Fifth Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) issued this decision on May 21, 2026, with the following presiding judges: Presiding Judge Dr. Brückner, Judge Haberkamp, and Judges Dr. Hamdorf and Dr. Malik and Judge Laube resolved: Upon the appeal of Party 1, the decision of the Bamberg Regional Court - 3rd Civil Chamber - of November 24, 2025 is reversed, and the decision of the Bamberg Local Court of November 3, 2025, is amended to grant access to the files without redactions. Reasons: I. Party 4 and Party 5 are pursuing the forced auction of the 1 property described above. Party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) applied to the Local Court, as a prospective bidder, for access to the parts of the forced auction file covered by her statutory right of access. The applicant, as a prospective bidder, applied to the Local Court for access to the parts of the forced auction file covered by her statutory right of access. ... 2 The Local Court granted this application with the restriction that the names, dates of birth, and addresses of the parties involved, as well as any already deleted land register entries, must be redacted in the documents made available for inspection. The applicant appeals the dismissal of her immediate appeal against this decision by way of the admissible appeal on points of law. 2. 3 The Court of Appeal is of the opinion that the applicant has no right to inspect the personal data of the parties involved. The right to inspect files pursuant to Section 42 of the Enforcement Code (ZVG) is limited by the general right of personality guaranteed by Article 2 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (GG), according to which every individual is generally entitled to decide for themselves when and within what limits personal matters are disclosed and personal data is used. Knowledge of the personal data of the parties involved— and already deleted entries in the land register—is not necessary for the decision regarding the acquisition of the auctioned property. It could, at most, be used for contacting the debtor and owner for the purpose of private acquisition outside of the auction proceedings, which is not a legitimate interest worthy of consideration within the framework of the auction proceedings. Furthermore, the legislature, through the First Justice Modernization Act, deleted the designation of the registered owner as a required content of the scheduling of the auction, thereby expressing that greater consideration must be given to the requirements of contemporary data protection in compulsory auction proceedings. III. 4 The appeal on points of law against this decision is successful. 5 1. The appeal on points of law is admissible pursuant to Section 574 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 2, Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) and is also admissible in all other respects (Section 575 ZPO). In particular, the immediate appeal was not inadmissible, which, notwithstanding the leave to appeal granted by the court of appeal, would have rendered the appeal on points of law inadmissible as well (see Senate, decision of December 19, 2024 - V ZB 77/23, NJW-RR 2025, 377 para. 5 et seq.). While Section 95 of the German Enforcement Code (ZVG) stipulates that an immediate appeal against a decision made before the decision on the award of the property can only be lodged insofar as the decision concerns the order suspension, reversal, temporary suspension, or continuation of the proceedings. However, according to the generally accepted and correct view, the provision does not preclude the admissibility of an immediate appeal – as in this case – against the (partial) rejection of an application for access to files pursuant to Section 42 of the German Enforcement Code (ZVG). (See Dassler/Schiffhauer/Hintzen, ZVG, 16th ed., Section 42, para. 8; BeckOK ZVG/Huber [March 1, 2026], Section 42, para. 15; Depré/Bachmann, ZVG, 3rd ed., Section 42, para. 16). For the partial exclusion of the appealability of interim decisions pursuant to Section 95 of the German Enforcement Code (ZVG) is intended to concentrate the legal protection of the parties on the award of the bid and its review within the framework established by Section 100 ZVG (see Senate, Decision of December 2024 - V ZB 77/23, loc. cit., para. 7). Legal protection against decisions of the enforcement court that are not directly related to the award of the bid is not restricted by Section 95 ZVG (see Abramenko in Schneider, ZVG, Section 95, para. 13; Michelsen in Kindl/Meller-Hannich, Gesamtes Recht der Zwangsvollstreckung [Complete Law of Enforcement], 5th ed., Section 95, para. 8; Stöber/Achenbach, ZVG, 24th ed., Section 95, para. 28). 6 2. The appeal on points of law is also well-founded. 7 a) The applicant has, as the court of appeal also assumes, a right of inspection pursuant to Section 42 of the German Law on Compulsory Auctions (ZVG). 8 aa) According to this provision, everyone is permitted to inspect the communications of the land registry office as well as the applications submitted (paragraph 1). This also applies to other documents relating to the property submitted by a party, in particular valuations (paragraph 2). The right of inspection of the files is not limited to the parties to the compulsory auction proceedings and does not require the demonstration of a special interest. This enables - 5 - in particular, prospective bidders to inform themselves about the circumstances of the property being auctioned before deciding to submit a bid (see Higher Regional Court of Hamm, MDR 2026, 474; Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main, OLGZ 1992, 285, 286; Regional Court of Hanover, decision of November 4, 2024 - 1 T 21/24, juris para. 9; Regional Court of Ravensburg, BeckRS 2025, 2499 para. 7; Stöber/Gojowczyk, ZVG, 24th ed., § 42 para. 1). 9 bb) The right of inspection includes, in particular, the certified copy of the relevant land register entry to be transmitted by the land registry pursuant to Section 19 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the German Enforcement Code (ZVG), the application for an order (Section 15 ZVG) and any subsequent applications for intervention (Section 27 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 ZVG), as well as the creditors' registrations. According to its purpose, Section 42 Paragraph 2 of the German Enforcement Code (ZVG) entitles the court, beyond its literal meaning, to inspect the valuation report obtained pursuant to Section 74a Paragraph 5 Sentence 1 of the ZVG, which, with the introduction of official valuation, replaced the valuations to be submitted by the parties involved (see Stöber/Gojowczyk, ZVG, 24th ed., Section 42, marginal note 4; Keller in Schneider, ZVG, Section 42, marginal note 15; see also Higher Regional Court of Hamm, MDR 2026, 474; Regional Court of Coburg, NZI 2025, 615, Headnote 1; Regional Court of Hanover, decision of November 4, 2024 - 1 T 21/24, juris marginal note 9; Schmidt-Wudy, NJW 2022, 2071, marginal note 15; based on this also BTDrucks. 15/1508 p. 36). Section 42 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZVG) does not, however, entitle the holder to inspect the remaining components of the auction file. However, Section 42 ZVG does not grant access to these components. Third parties may only inspect them if they demonstrate a legitimate interest in accordance with Section 299 para. 2 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). 10 b) However, the Court of Appeal's view that the file components covered by the right of inspection under Section 42 ZVG must be redacted before inspection is granted, insofar as they contain personal data, is flawed by legal errors. - 6 - 11 aa) In some cases, case law—as in the present case by the court of appeal—takes the view that personal data should be excluded from the right of inspection under Section 42 of the German Enforcement Code (ZVG) for constitutional and data protection reasons (see Syke Local Court, decision of January 26, 2026 - 35 K 15/24, juris; on this practice, see also Schmidt-Wudy, NJW 2022, 2071, para. 4). 12 bb) In legal literature and the prevailing case law, however, such a restriction is rejected (see Coburg Regional Court, NZI 2025, 615 paras. 14 et seq.; Bonn Regional Court, decision of April 24, 2023 - 6 T 47/23, juris paras. 5 et seq.; Traunstein Regional Court, BeckRS 2023, 21940 para. 6; Münster Regional Court, decision of December 30, 2024 - 5 T 529/24, juris para. 5; Stöber/Gojowczyk, ZVG, 24th ed., § 42 para. 4; Böttcher, ZVG, 7th ed., § 42 para. 2; Schmidt-Wudy, NJW 2022, 2071; the same author, Rpfleger 2014, 293, 298 f. regarding the legal situation at that time; Schmidberger, IVR 2024, 134). 13 cc) The latter view is correct. In compulsory auction proceedings, Section 42 of the German Law on Compulsory Auctions (ZVG) permits everyone to inspect the components of the case file listed therein, without requiring the personal data contained therein to be redacted beforehand. 14 (1) According to its wording, Section 42 ZVG does not provide for any restriction on the right to inspect the components of the file listed therein. Insofar as file inspection is to be granted, it therefore takes place in the complete and unaltered original content of the file. This applies regardless of how the inspection takes place, i.e., whether – as is generally considered permissible (see Stöber/ Gojowczyk, ZVG, 24th ed., § 42 para. 6; Simon/Wüste in Kindl/Meller-Hannich, Entire Law of Enforcement, 5th ed., § 42 para. 4; Böttcher, ZVG, 7th ed., § 42 para. 4; Keller in Schneider, ZVG, § 42 para. 19; Depré/Bachmann, ZVG, 3rd ed., § 42 para. 6) – inspection of an original file still kept in paper form is granted at the clerk's office, whether specially made photocopies are provided (see Keller in Schneider, ZVG, § 42 para. 21), or whether the In- content of electronically maintained files transmitted or made available on a file inspection portal 15 (2) The structure of the Compulsory Auction Act does not require withholding personal data recognizable from the relevant file components from prospective bidders. In particular, there is no conflict of values between the far-reaching right to inspect files pursuant to Section 42 of the Compulsory Auction Act and the less comprehensive information in the notice of hearing pursuant to Sections 37 et seq. of the Compulsory Auction Act. The respective subject matters are not comparable. Because the notice of hearing must be published (Sections 39 et seq. of the Compulsory Auction Act), all data contained therein are made known to the general public. The acquisition of personal data through the exercise of the right to inspect files pursuant to Section 42 of the Compulsory Auction Act, on the other hand, requires that the respective applicant is aware of the proceedings and specifically requests file inspection from the enforcement court. Therefore, for systematic reasons, there is no reason to interpret Section 42 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZVG) restrictively in light of the narrower wording of Sections 37 et seq. ZVG. 16 (3) The legislative history also provides no support for a restriction of the public's right to inspect files. 17 (a) The materials relating to the German Code of Civil Procedure of March 24, 1897 (RGBl. p. 97) do not indicate that the legislator intended to exclude certain data contained in the documents covered by Section 42 ZVG from the right of inspection. It should be noted that at the turn of the 20th century, data protection did not yet have, or at least not nearly the significance it has today. The legislator has but has not since taken the development of data protection law and the societal significance of the protection of personal data as an opportunity - 8 - to restrict the provision, even though the Compulsory Auction Act has been amended several times since its entry into force. 18 (b) Materials from legislative procedures for amending the Compulsory Auction Act rather suggest that the legislator still assumes a comprehensive right of access to the file components made available to third parties by Section 42 of the Compulsory Auction Act. For example, the Compulsory Auction Act in its original version stipulated in Section 38 sentence 1 of the former version that the owner of the property must be named in the publicly announced notice of the auction. This regulation was amended by the First Act to Modernize the Judiciary of August 24, 2004 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 2198) due to the changed requirements of data protection (see Parliamentary Document 15/1508, p. 36) such that the owner no longer needs to be named in the scheduling of the hearing. However, the legislature refrained from restricting the right of third parties to inspect the files accordingly. The explanatory memorandum to the Act assumes, rather, that potential purchasers have a legitimate interest in ascertaining the owner of the property. The right of inspection under Section 42 of the Enforcement Code is intended to serve to provide potential purchasers with more comprehensive information in this regard (see Parliamentary Document 15/1508, p. 36). 19 (c) The purpose and intent of the regulation support a comprehensive right of access to files for third parties, in particular prospective bidders. The provision serves – like the compulsory auction law as a whole – primarily the purpose of achieving, through the auction, a bid that corresponds as closely as possible to the value of the property (see Explanatory Memorandum to the Draft Law Concerning the Compulsory Enforcement of Judgments Against Immovable Property, 1889, p. 159, as well as the Senate's decision of September 29, 2011 – V ZB 65/11, NJW-RR 2012, 145 para. 7; and of October 29, 2020 – V ZB 13/20, NJW-RR 2021, 467 para. 9 regarding the announcement of the auction date) and thus generating proceeds that are sufficient, as far as possible, to satisfy the claims of the enforcing creditors. The assumption apparently underlying the law, that this goal can be better achieved if prospective bidders can obtain the most comprehensive information possible about the property and, if necessary, also contact the property owner (see BT-Drs. 15/15808 p. 36), appears comprehensible (see paragraph 22 below for more details). This presupposes that the prospective bidder can inspect the file components covered by the right of inspection (see paragraph 9) unchanged. 20 (aa) Acquisition through foreclosure proceedings is associated with the special feature compared to the purchase of real estate on the open market that, as a rule, there is no contact between the prospective bidder and the debtor/owner. Therefore, prospective bidders are regularly unable to inspect the property beforehand, especially since the enforcement court can neither permit nor enforce such inspections (see Stöber/Gojowczyk, ZVG, 24th ed., § 42 para. 11; Keller in Schneider, ZVG, § 42 para. 23 et seq., each with further references; Grziwotz, MDR 2013, 433, 436). By providing prospective bidders with the information it has available, the enforcement court enables them to better assess the risks associated with submitting a bid and, consequently, avoid making unnecessarily large discounts when submitting their bids (see Schmidt-Wudy, NJW 2022, 2071 para. 3). Furthermore, this counteracts the risk, contrary to the purpose of the proceedings, that prospective bidders, due to insufficient information, might refrain from submitting a bid altogether, thus reducing the pool of bidders. Therefore, it is beneficial to the goal of successfully conducting the auction proceedings if prospective bidders can obtain more detailed information about the auction property themselves by inspecting the files (cf. regarding this obligation, Senate, Decision of March 22, 2007 - V ZB 139/06, BeckRS 2007, 6727 para. 37). - 10 - 21 (bb) For this purpose, the provision of personal data and already deleted land register entries is not dispensable. It enables prospective bidders without the debtor's cooperation, to obtain information about the property to be auctioned from former or current beneficiaries and to draw their own conclusions about the actual and legal circumstances of the property and the expected course of the further proceedings. The personal data of current and – in the case of existing rights – future (real) creditors can be of considerable economic importance to potential purchasers, as can, for example, the data of tenants or those with rights of residence. By inspecting already deleted land register entries, prospective bidders are also given the opportunity to ascertain certainty about the registration processes covered by the public faith (see Senate, Decision of September 21, 2023, V ZB 17/22, NJW 2024, 440, para. 24). 22 (cc) By providing the address and date of birth of the owner and debtor, the Court of Appeal correctly observes that the prospective bidder is also enabled to contact them to explore the possibility of acquiring the property by private agreement before the auction date. The Senate does not share the Court of Appeal's assessment that acquiring the property by private agreement cannot be a "legitimate interest" in the compulsory auction proceedings. It is true that Section 42 of the German Law on Compulsory Auctions (ZVG) does not serve the interests of a third party in acquiring the property by private agreement. However, private acquisition, especially since it can only take place with the consent of the enforcing creditors due to the seizure effect of the order (§§ 20 et seq. ZVG), serves to achieve a purchase price that corresponds as closely as possible to the value of the auctioned property and to satisfy the creditors' claims as fully as possible. It is therefore not inconsistent with the objectives of the proceedings, but on the contrary, - 11 - even leads to a more profitable realization of the property than would have been the case with an auction. 23 c) Data protection regulations do not preclude the granting of unrestricted access to files on the basis of § 42 ZVG. Only the Bavarian Data Protection Act (BayDSG) is applicable pursuant to § 1 para. 1 sentence 1 no. 2, § 2 para. 2 BDSG. However, this takes precedence under Article 1, paragraph 5 of the Bavarian Data Protection Act (BayDSG) behind special legal provisions on judicial procedures and thus behind Section 42 of the Enforcement Code (ZVG) (correctly Schmidt-Wudy, NJW 2022, 2071, para. 21; as well as generally regarding state data protection laws, Bonn Regional Court, decision of April 24, 2023 - 6 T 47/23, juris para. 5), without the precedence rule of Article 31 of the Basic Law (GG) being relevant in this respect. 24 d) The provision in Section 42 of the Enforcement Code (ZVG) also raises neither constitutional concerns nor does any overriding applicable EU law require that personal data and deleted land register entries be rendered unrecognizable before granting access to files to third parties. It is therefore unnecessary to decide whether the application of Section 42 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZVG) must be examined against the standard of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Basic Law because the right to inspect files in compulsory auction proceedings is not fully determined by EU law (see BVerfGE 152, 152 para. 42 - Right to be Forgotten I; and BVerfG, NJW 2021, 3654 para. 13 on the right to inspect files pursuant to Section 406e para. 1 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO)), or whether only the EU fundamental rights contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be considered because the protection of the fundamental rights of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data is guaranteed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which takes precedence over the national law of the Member States (see BVerfGE 152, 216 paras. 42 to 49 - Right to Forgotten II; Federal Court of Justice (BGH), Judgment of July 27, 2020 - VI ZR 405/18, BGHZ 226, 285 para. 25; Decision of January 23, 2024 - II ZB 7/23, BGHZ 239, 253 para. 35). - 12 - 25 aa) The right of third parties to inspect files under Section 42 of the German Enforcement Code (ZVG) does not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Basic Law of those persons whose personal data are contained in the documents covered by the right of inspection. ... 26 (1) It is true, however, that the right to informational self-determination guaranteed in Article 2 paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 1 paragraph 1 of the Basic Law encompasses the authority of the individual to decide, in principle, when and within what limits personal information is disclosed and personal data is used (cf. BVerfGE 65, 1, 43; BVerfG, NJW 1988, 3009). The disclosure of personal data resulting from access to files therefore constitutes an infringement of the right to informational self-determination of those persons whose personal data are made accessible in this way (see Federal Constitutional Court, NJW 2021, 3654 para. 13; NJW 2007, 1052, 1053; Federal Court of Justice, decision of April 10, 2007 - I ZB 15/06, GRUR 2007, 628 para. 14). (2) However, the right to informational self-determination is not guaranteed without limitations. 27 Restrictions in the overriding public interest, based on statutory grounds and in strict compliance with the principle of proportionality and the requirement of legal certainty, must be accepted by the individual (cf. BVerfGE 65, 1, 43 et seq.; 115, 320, 344 et seq. with further references). The right to unrestricted access to the documents listed therein, granted by Section 42 of the German Enforcement Code (ZVG), is therefore justified. It is based on a statutory foundation that complies with the requirement of legal certainty and is also otherwise unobjectionable, in particular, proportionate. 28 (a) The provision serves the purpose of achieving, in compulsory auction proceedings, a bid that corresponds as closely as possible to the value of the property being auctioned (see above, para. 19). In the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court - 13 - it is recognized that the conduct of judicial proceedings is, in principle, a legitimate purpose that can justify the interference associated with granting access to files (see Federal Constitutional Court, NJW 2014, 1581, para. 21, regarding the trade and business secrets protected by Article 12, paragraph 1 of the Basic Law). This also applies to access to files by third parties based on Section 42 of the Enforcement Code. Granting access to the unredacted files is suitable and necessary for promoting the purpose of the proceedings (see above, paras. 20 et seq.). 29 (b) The disclosure of personal data associated with this is also proportionate to the interests protected by the improvement of the prospects of recovery, which themselves have constitutional status. 30 (aa) Only in the case of bids commensurate with the value of the property is the proportionality of the loss of ownership associated with the award for the debtor preserved by the fact that he receives a corresponding equivalent value – either through release from liabilities or directly , and ensures that the creditor can effectively realize his right to satisfaction, which is also protected by Article 14 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law (see, on the latter point, Federal Court of Justice, Decision of December 2, 2009 – I ZB 65/09, NJW 2010, 1380 para. 12; Judgment of March 25, 1999 – IX ZR 223/97, BGHZ 141, 173, 176, each with further references). By limiting access to certain documents that are particularly relevant to the acquisition decision, the law strikes a reasonable balance between the data subject's right to informational self-determination and the requirements of the procedure. 31 (bb) Insofar as personal data of the debtor and the creditor are concerned, it must be taken into account that it is also in their interest that prospective bidders can obtain the most comprehensive information possible about the auctioned property and, moreover, be able to contact them to discuss the possibilities of a private purchase (see above, para. 22). 32 (cc) Furthermore, the disclosure of personal data of other persons to the prospective bidder is less serious than the publication of such data. Firstly, the acquisition of knowledge of the data through exercising the right to inspect the files presupposes that the respective applicant is aware of the proceedings and specifically requests inspection of the files from the enforcement court (see above, para. 15). Secondly, persons inspecting files in compulsory auction proceedings are prohibited, according to Section 299, Paragraph 4, Sentence 2 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), from publicly disseminating the contents of the files provided to them, either in whole or in part, or from transmitting or making them accessible to third parties for purposes unrelated to the proceedings. This regulation applies to the right to inspect files in foreclosure proceedings pursuant to Section 869 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), because Section 42 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZVG) does not contain a specific regulation regarding the use of data by the person inspecting the files (correctly Gomm in Ory/Weth, jurisPK-ERV [October 31, 2025], Section 299 ZPO, para. 21; regarding Section 299 para. 3 ZPO, see, for example, Coburg Regional Court, NZI 2025, 615, para. 13; Ravensburg Regional Court, BeckRS 2025, 2499, para. 11; BeckOGK/Rüsing, ZPO [April 1, 2026], Section 869, para. 6; Schmidt-Wudy, NJW 2025, 191 paras. 21 et seq. with further references). 33 (dd) Insofar as the disclosed information can be obtained from the land register it also originates from a register designed for publicity, which can be inspected if a legitimate interest exists, without any constitutional concerns arising in this respect (regarding Section 12 Paragraph 1 of the Land Register Code BVerfGE 64, 229, 238; BVerfG, NJW 2001, 503, 504). Section 42 of the Enforcement Code presumes such a legitimate interest for those third parties who have knowledge of the forced auction proceedings and apply to the enforcement court for access to the files. - 15 - 34 (ee) Finally, it must be considered that the workload for the enforcement courts would be considerable if they were required to examine the relevant parts of the file (see para. 9) before granting access to the files to determine whether they contain personal data, in order to then redact it. Given that the right to inspect files is granted to everyone in compulsory auction proceedings by Section 42 of the German Law on Compulsory Auctions (ZVG), the associated workload could lead to a significant disruption of the functional capacity of the enforcement courts (see Senate, Decision of September 21, 2023 - V ZB 17/22, NJW 2024, 440 para. 26 regarding the so-called land register laundering). 35 bb) The fact that the inspection pursuant to Section 42 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZVG) results in the disclosure of personal data to third parties is also compatible with Union law, in particular with the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which takes precedence over this provision insofar as it concerns the disclosure of personal data. 36 (1) While Article 6(2) GDPR authorises Member States to adopt or maintain more specific national provisions, The provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) apply in their entirety pursuant to Article 288(2), second sentence, TFEU and take precedence over national provisions such as Section 42 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZVG), which do not contain more specific provisions for adapting the application of the GDPR (see CJEU, Judgment of 7 March 2024, Endemol Shine Finland Oy, C-740/22, EU:C:2024:216, paragraphs 42 et seq.). Access to files pursuant to Section 42 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZVG), access may therefore only be granted to the extent that the requirements established by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) are fully met. This requires taking into account, irrespective of whether this is provided for in the national legal basis, in particular, the interests of the data subjects affected by the data processing (see ECJ, Judgment of 7 March 2024, - 16 - Endemol Shine Finland Oy, C-740/22, EU:C:2024:216, paras. 43 et seq.; Judgment of 2 March 2023, Norra Stockholm Bygg AB, C-268/21, EU:C:2023:145, paras. 43, 48, 59). 37 (2) The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is applicable in the present case in terms of time (Article 99(2) GDPR), territory (Article 3(1) GDPR), and, in particular, in terms of subject matter pursuant to Article 2 (Article 1) GDPR. According to Article 2 (Article 1) GDPR, the GDPR applies to the wholly or partly automated processing of personal data as well as to the non-automated processing of personal data which are stored or intended to be stored in a filing system. This includes the granting access to files in auction proceedings. Because the “processing” defined in Article 4 No. 2 GDPR also includes granting access to files (see CJEU, Judgment of 7 March 2024, Endemol Shine Finland Oy, C740/22, EU:C:2024:216, para. 30 for the provision of oral information), and the General Data Protection Regulation also applies to data processing by judicial authorities, including courts (see CJEU, Judgment of 2 March 2023, Norra Stockholm Bygg AB, C-268/21, EU:C:2023:145, para. 26; Judgment of 24 March 2022, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, C-245/20, EU:C:2022:216, paras. 25 et seq.). For the requirement of storage “in a file system,” it is irrelevant whether this data is contained in electronic databases or still in physical files or registers (see CJEU, Judgment of 7 March 2024, Endemol Shine Finland Oy, C-740/22, EU:C:2024:216, paragraphs 37 et seq.; Judgment of 10 July 2018, Jehovan todistajat, C-25/17, EU:C:2018:551, paragraphs 56 et seq.). 38 (3) The granting of access to files pursuant to Section 42 of the German Enforcement Code (ZVG) constitutes lawful processing of data within the meaning of Article 6 paragraph 1(e) GDPR. 39 (a) According to settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, any processing of personal data must comply with the principles laid down in - 17 - Article 5 GDPR and, in particular, in view of the principle of lawfulness of processing provided for in Article 5(1)(a) GDPR, it must meet one of the conditions for lawfulness of processing set out in Article 6 of that Regulation (see CJEU, Judgment of 22 June 2021, Latvijas Republikas Saeima [Penalty Points], C-439/19, EU:C:2021:504, paragraph 96; Judgment of 7 December 2023, SCHUFA Holding and Others [Scoring], C-634/21, EU:C:2023:957, paragraph 67; Judgment of 7 March 2024, Endemol Shine Finland Oy, C-740/22, EU:C:2024:216, paragraph 45). The transmission of personal data by national courts may, in particular, fall under Article 6(1), first subparagraph, point (e) of the GDPR, according to which processing is lawful if and insofar as it is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller (see CJEU, judgment of 7 March 2024, Endemol Shine Finland Oy, C-740/22, EU:C:2024:216, paragraph 46; judgment of 22 June 2021, Latvijas Republikas Saeima [Strafpunkte], C-439/19, EU:C:2021:504, paragraph 99). (b) This is to be affirmed for the access to files required under Section 42 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZVG) for the purposes of the compulsory auction proceedings (see also Coburg Regional Court, NZI 2025, 615 para. 18; Bonn Regional Court, decision of April 24, 2023 - 6 T 47/23, juris para. 5; Schmidt-Wudy, NJW 2022, 2071 para. 19; regarding Section 299 para. 2 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) also Bavarian Higher Regional Court, NZI 2021, 1078 para. 33). The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) identifies the conduct of judicial proceedings in Article 23(1)(f) GDPR as a specially protected objective. According to the Court of Justice's case law, the tasks justifying data processing within the meaning of Article 6(1)(e) GDPR therefore include, in particular, those performed by courts in the exercise of their judicial powers (see CJEU, Judgment of 2 March 2023, Norra Stockholm Bygg AB, C-268/21, EU:C:2023:145, paragraph 32). It is irrelevant whether judicial tasks are performed within the framework of the adjudication or enforcement proceedings - 18 - because the General Data Protection Regulation, in Article 23(1)(j) GDPR, expressly protects the enforcement of civil claims. Enforcement against immovable property by way of compulsory auction is at least also in the public interest and is carried out in the exercise of public authority. Your national legal basis required under Article 6(3)(b) GDPR in conjunction with Recital 45 of the GDPR is found in Section 42 of the German Enforcement Code (ZVG). 41(c) The access to files made possible by Section 42 ZVG is also proportionate to the legitimate purpose pursued, according to the standards of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). 42(aa) According to Article 6(3), fourth sentence, GDPR, the legal basis under Member State law permitting the processing of data must be proportionate to the legitimate purpose pursued. The requirement of necessity described here is met according to Recital 39 of the General Data Protection Regulation if the pursued objective, which is in the public interest, cannot be achieved as effectively by other means that are less intrusive on the fundamental rights of the data subjects, in particular the rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data guaranteed by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter and by Article 16(1) TFEU, whereby the exceptions and limitations regarding the principle of the protection of such data must be limited to what is absolutely necessary (see CJEU, Judgment of 1 August 2022, Vyriausioji tarnybines etikos komisija, C-184/20, EU:C:2022:601, paragraph 85; Judgment of June 22, 2021, Latvijas Republikas Saeima [Penalty Points], C-439/19, EU:C:2021:504, paragraph 110). The necessity must be examined in conjunction with the principle of “data minimization” enshrined in Article 5 paragraph 1(c) GDPR, which requires that personal data be adequate, relevant, and limited to what is necessary for the purposes for which they are processed (see CJEU, Judgment of 1 August 2022, Vyriausioji tarnybines etikos komisija, C-184/20, EU:C:2022:601, paragraph 93; Judgment of 11 December 2019, Asociația de Proprietari bloc M5A-ScaraA, C-708/18, EU:C:2019:1064, paragraph 48). 43 (bb) These requirements are met for the file inspection provided for in Section 42 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZVG), which is limited in scope to specific file components, since the disclosure of names and addresses of potential contact persons, parties involved, and in particular the creditors of existing rights – as explained above (see paragraphs 20 et seq.) – contributes to remedying the information deficit of prospective bidders in the compulsory auction proceedings and opens up the possibility of a private acquisition, which would not be possible to the same extent if the relevant data were redacted. ... 45 (aaa) While the General Data Protection Regulation is intended to ensure a high level of protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data (see CJEU, Judgment of 1 August 2022, Vyriausioji tarnybines etikos komisija, C-184/20, EU:C:2022:601, para. 61; Judgment of 24 February 2022, Valsts ieņēmumu dienests, C-175/20, EU:C:2022:124, para. 49). The right to the protection of personal data is not absolute, however, but must be viewed in light of its societal function and balanced against other fundamental rights, such as the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter, in accordance with the principle of proportionality (see CJEU, Judgment of 2 March 2023, Norra Stockholm Bygg AB, C-268/21, EU:C:2023:145, para. 49; CJEU, Judgment of 22 June 2021, Latvijas Republikas Saeima - 20 - [Strafpunkte], C-439/19, EU:C:2021:504, para. 105). The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that parties to civil proceedings must be able to access the evidence necessary to adequately substantiate their claims, even if this evidence may contain personal data of parties or third parties (see CJEU, Judgment of 2 March 2023, Norra Stockholm Bygg AB, C268/21, EU:C:2023:145, paragraph 53). This principle can be applied analogously to the enforcement proceedings. A creditor can only effectively enforce a court decision if, in the forced auction of the debtor's property, initiated by the creditor, they can realize its value to the greatest extent possible. If, as explained above (paras. 20 et seq.), it is necessary or at least beneficial for prospective bidders to have unrestricted access to the relevant parts of the file (cf. para. 9), then the interest of the affected parties in maintaining the confidentiality of their identity recedes behind this procedural objective and the corresponding (also public) interest in realizing the market value (cf. regarding the balancing considerations of publicity and the accuracy of the land register, Senate, decision of September 21, 2023 - V ZB 17/22, NJW 2024, 440 para. 14). 46 (bbb) Furthermore, the balancing considerations already explained (paras. 29 et seq.) must also be taken into account in this context. This applies in particular to the fact that persons who inspect files in compulsory auction proceedings may not publicly disseminate the contents of the files provided to them, either in whole or in part, or transmit them to third parties for purposes unrelated to the proceedings or make them accessible (see above, paragraph 32). - 21 - IV. 47 There is no reason to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU. The application of EU law to the present case does not raise any questions of interpretation that are not already clear on their own or have not been sufficiently clarified by the case law of the Court of Justice (see CJEU, Judgment of 6 October 2021, Consorzio Italian Management, C-561/19, EU:C:2021:799, paragraphs 32 et seq.; Judgment of 6 October 1982, C.I.L.F.I.T., C-283/81, EU:C:1982:335, paragraph 21). The Court of Justice has already ruled on the criteria according to which the admissibility of the transfer of personal data by national courts under the General Data Protection Regulation (see CJEU, Judgment of 7 March 2024, Endemol Shine Finland Oy, C-740/22, EU:C:2024:216; Judgment of 2 March 2023, Norra Stockholm Bygg AB, C-268/21, EU:C:2023:145). The assessment of whether the relevant national provisions pursue the objectives permissible under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and whether they are necessary and proportionate to those objectives is, however, a matter for the national courts (see CJEU, Judgment of 2 March 2023, Norra Stockholm Bygg AB, C-268/21, EU:C:2023:145, paras. 39, 46 et seq.; Judgment of 17 June 2021, M.I.C.M., C-597/19, EU:C:2021:492, para. 111; Judgment of 4 July 2023, Meta Platforms, C-252/21, EU:C:2023:537, para. 110; see also BGH, Decision of 23 January 2024 II ZB 7/23, BGHZ 239, 253 para. 89). V. 48 The decision of the court of appeal must therefore be set aside (§ 577 para. 4 sentence 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure). The Senate can decide the matter itself, since the setting aside is only due to an error of law in the application of the law to the established facts and, based on the latter, the case is ready for a final decision (§ 577 para. 5 sentence 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure). The applicant must be granted inspection of the files without redactions. VI. 49. No decision on costs is warranted because the applicant as a third party, on the one hand, and the parties to the compulsory auction proceedings, on the other hand, are not in an adversarial relationship as parties within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure (cf. on this requirement the Senate, decision of June 6, 2024 - V ZB 31/23, NZM 2025, 191 para. 17 with further references). Brückner Haberkamp Hamdorf Malik Laube Lower courts: Bamberg Local Court, decision of November 3, 2025 - 2 K 43/24 - Bamberg Regional Court, decision of November 24, 2025 - 32 T 80/25 e -