Hesse: Administrative Court of Hesse lifts interim injunction on RheinMain University for using Cookiebot
The Hessian Administrative Court 10th Senate ('the Court') issued, on 17 January 2022, its judgment in Case No. 10 B 2486/21, where it lifted the interim injunction against the RheinMain University of Applied Sciences concerning the use of Cybot A/S's consent management platform Cookiebot by Usercentrics ('Cookiebot CMP'), following a preliminary injunction by the Administrative Court of Wiesbaden ('the Administrative Court') on the same.
Background to the case
Specifically, the Administrative Court issued, on 1 December 2021, a preliminary decision in Case No. Az. 6 L 738 / 21, where it had prohibited the University from using Cookiebot CMP on its website. In particular, the Administrative Court stated, among other things, that the Cookiebot CMP transfers the complete IP address of the end user to the servers of a company whose headquarters are in the U.S., which constituted a transfer of personal data to a third country. In addition, the Administrative Court noted that such transfer is prohibited in view of the Court of Justice of the European Union's ('CJEU') judgment in Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems (C-311/18) ('Schrems II'), following which the respondents appealed against the interim injunction.
Findings of the Court
In particular, the Court held that the Administrative Court should not have issued the interim injunction because the applicant had not established a ground for an injunction under Section 123(3) of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure of 21 January 1960 as amended ('VwGO'), in conjunction with Section 920(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure of 12 September 1950 as amended ('ZPO'). In addition, the Court found that there is no ground for an order because the applicant is not dependent on the use of the respondent's website and has not made it evident that without the use of this site it would result in significant disadvantages to the applicant in accordance with Section 123(1) Sentence 2 of the VwGO.
Furthermore, the Court held that the interim injunction sought and issued in the contested order only achieves a regulation taking effect in the future. In this context, the Court specified that insofar as personal data was already collected, stored, possibly processed, and passed on in the past when the applicant accessed the defendant's website, this would not change as a result of the requested interim injunction. Consequently, the Court found that the respondent's complaints are justified and that the Administrative Court should not have issued the temporary injunction requested by the applicant.
In light of the above, the Court lifted the interim injunction and held that the judgment is final.