Region Because a call from an employee helped her partner discover that his girlfriend had secretly planned to move out of their shared apartment, a woman from Bornheim has now sued Telekom.
Because a call from an employee revealed to her partner that she had secretly planned to move out of their shared apartment, a woman from Bornheim sued her telecommunications provider. The Bonn District Court, however, dismissed the suit, whereupon the woman appealed against the decision. Now she has withdrawn her application for appeal. The Bonn Regional Court did not give her complaint any chance of success in the second instance either.
In March 2019 - as the plaintiff had argued - she had decided to end the relationship with her boyfriend at the time. However, she had secretly prepared to move out of the shared apartment. In order to implement her plan, the woman wanted to reactivate an old telephone number. She had discussed this several times on the phone with the responsible Telekom employees. Also the fact that the clerks were only supposed to call her mobile and not on the landline network in case of queries.
Nevertheless, according to the complaint, an employee dialled the old landline number on March 26 - and her unsuspecting boyfriend must have been shocked when he learned of his partner's plans to move. In any case, he is said to have first confronted her in the evening and then asked her to leave the shared apartment immediately.
Bonn judges see no infringement of rights
Although the woman only moved out on 4 April, she was not able to complete the move as planned due to the short time available. Instead of the friends who were supposed to help her, professional removal men now had to transport her household goods to her new home. She wanted compensation for this: 1000 Euro for the removal company, plus 200 for food, drinks and tips from the removal company. In addition, the door of a display case was broken during the action, for which she charged another 150 Euro. Telekom is guilty of a breach of duty because its employees divulged their moving plans contrary to agreement and also violated the Data Protection Act.
The judges did not want to follow this argument in the second instance either, because the call was not really the cause of the damage. Even if the plaintiff's submission is taken for granted, the facts are not sufficient for a breach of duty by the company.
(Original text: Leif Kubik. Translation: Mareike Graepel)