New Schufa judgment (incl. nasty lawyer tricks)
The case before the Cologne Higher Regional Court is a tough one:
Schufa wanted to prevent a judgment – and chose a method that is considered an absolute no-go among lawyers. Schufa’s lawyer contacted the plaintiff directly – without involving the plaintiff’s lawyer.
Read on to find out what’s behind the case, why it’s a scandal – and how the court ultimately decided.
The trigger: A Schufa entry remains despite payment
A man had not paid invoices totaling € 739.26 – as a result, he received a negative Schufa entry. He later paid the amount – but the entry remained. The reason given by Schufa: ” This is our internal rule. The entry remains for three years. “
The man saw it differently – and sued. He invoked the major Schufa ruling by the European Court of Justice (2023), which stipulates faster deletion – no later than six months after the conclusion of proceedings with discharge of residual debt.
The case ends up before the OLG Cologne
The plaintiff lost at first instance (Cologne Regional Court). He appealed – to the Cologne Higher Regional Court. There the judge indicated: Schufa will lose. And it was precisely at this point that things came to a head: Schufa wanted to propose a settlement in order to avoid a judgment. But not via the plaintiff’s lawyer – but directly to the plaintiff himself.
Scandal in the proceedings: Lawyer bypasses lawyer
In Germany, there is a clear ban on circumvention (Section 12 BORA): A lawyer may not communicate directly with the opposing party if the latter is represented by a lawyer.
But that’s exactly what Schufa’s in-house lawyer did.
He contacted the plaintiff directly – and proposed a secret settlement. With monetary payment and withdrawal of the claim plus confidentiality.
The plaintiff’s lawyer reacted indignantly – and rightly so. Because:
-
If the action is withdrawn, the plaintiff shall bear all costs
-
The legal expenses insurance might not have paid out
-
An advantage for Schufa – a risk for the claimant
Can an in-house lawyer do that?
Schufa says: “That wasn’t a lawyer in the traditional sense – just our employee.” But the legal situation speaks a different language:
-
An in-house lawyer is a fully-fledged lawyer, only with a permanent client (his employer)
-
The judgment of the Federal Court of Justice (2015) on the comparable case of an insolvency administrator is clear:
-
Even a representative acting as a lawyer with special knowledge may not contact a party directly
Schufa’s behavior could therefore constitute a serious circumvention – with possible consequences before the Lawyers’ Court.
And the verdict? Schufa loses!
The plaintiff did not agree to the settlement. On April 10, 2025, the Higher Regional Court of Cologne announced the verdict:
-
Schufa was convicted
-
She must pay €1,040.50 in damages plus interest
-
Reason: Violation of the GDPR
-
The judges followed the plaintiff’s argument:
Three years retention period? Too long. Six months is enough.
What happens next?
The judgment is not yet final. Both the plaintiff and Schufa can appeal to the Federal Court of Justice. We will keep you up to date – on pepperpapers.de and of course on taxpro.tv!
Conclusion
A trial that shows that even large institutions such as Schufa are not untouchable. And when rules are violated – be it in terms of data protection or legal fairness – the courts make clear judgments.
If you also have problems with Schufa:
Our legal documents on PepperPapers.de help you to enforce your rights – without a lawyer.
