SCHUFA comments on ECJ proceedings

On 16 March, the Advocate General read out his opinion before the European Court of Justice in the context of two proceedings concerning SCHUFA. These are not a judgement, but a recommendation to the court. We expect a ruling from the ECJ in the summer of this year.


From SCHUFA Holding AG

17.03.2023 Wiesbaden


The proceedings do not only affect SCHUFA. The interpretations of the ECJ will probably be binding for all credit agencies in Europe. Essentially, it is a question of whether the calculation of a score for a private person is already to be understood as an automated decision on the granting of credit and how long credit agencies may inform about a discharge of residual debt. The Advocate General of the ECJ is of the opinion that a discharge of residual debt may only be disclosed by SCHUFA as long as it is published in public registers. In Germany, this is six months. The court will also decide, in accordance with the Advocate General's opinion, under which conditions scores may be transmitted to contractual partners.


Crucial for us: The way the score is calculated is not objected to by the Advocate General in his opinion.

SCHUFA is concerned with legal certainty - for the people for whom we provide creditworthiness information, for a fair assessment of credit risks in economic life and for the work of credit agencies. Of course, we will adapt our processes and services to the requirements of the ECJ as quickly as possible - after a corresponding ruling.

For background:

The ECJ answers questions on the correct understanding of European law. With the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a new European legal basis in data protection law has existed since May 2018. In many cases, there is still a lack of case law on these new regulations, which interprets them, applies them to a specific case and thus makes them easier to understand. Therefore, there are currently many submissions on data protection law that the ECJ is dealing with.


The ECJ does not decide on the legal dispute underlying the questions. The national, i.e. German, court that has turned to the ECJ with questions of clarification must then base its decision on this understanding.



Source: Schufa news (Translated)

Write a comment

Comments: 0