What is the legal basis for processing personal data?

Consent:

The data subject has given their consent to the processing of their personal data for one or more specific purposes. This consent must always be documented.

Example: A customer states in writing that his telephone number may also be used for advertising calls.

Fulfillment of contract:

The processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or for the implementation of pre-contractual measures that are taken at the request of the data subject.

Example: For the delivery of a piece of furniture it is necessary to process the address and the name of the customer.

Legal obligation:

Processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation addressed to the controller.

Example: A legal regulation must be complied with that necessarily requires the data processing of customers, e.g. a legal regulation from tax law.

Vital interests of individuals:

Processing is necessary to protect vital interests of the data subject or another natural person.

Example: In the event of a life-threatening accident, the blood group of the person concerned is passed on for life-saving treatment.

Public interest:

The processing is necessary for the performance of a task that is in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority that has been assigned to the person responsible.

Example: An editorial office processes data from a well-known and important person.

Legitimate interest:

Processing is necessary to safeguard the legitimate interests of the person responsible or a third party, unless the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject that require the protection of personal data prevail, in particular if the data subject is a child .

This legal basis is merely a so-called "catch-all element". This means that the existence of another legal basis should be checked regularly.

Example: The management of a bank would like to secure the building with video cameras. It is now being examined whether protection against attacks outweighs the right to privacy in public spaces.