Home Knowledge ECJ Says No in SCHUFA Case: New Decision on Automated Decision Making

ECJ Says No in SCHUFA Case: New Decision on Automated Decision Making

In a significant ruling, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has determined that the practices of SCHUFA Holding AG, a prominent German provider of consumer credit ratings, might contravene the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

In this case (Case C‑634/21), the ECJ examined the practices of SCHUFA Holding AG, in the context of GDPR compliance, particularly focusing on automated decision-making processes. This case originated from a dispute where an individual, OQ, was denied credit based on a score determined by SCHUFA. OQ applied for SCHUFA to send her information on the personal data registered and to erase some of the data which was allegedly incorrect.  In response to that request, SCHUFA informed OQ of her score and outlined, in broad terms, the methods for calculating the scores. However, referring to trade secrecy, it refused to disclose the various elements taken into account for the purposes of that calculation and their weighting.

SCHUFA stated that it limited itself to sending information to its contractual partners and it was those contractual partners which made the actual contractual decisions. The key issue was whether SCHUFA’s method of creating a credit score using automated processing, including profiling, constituted an ‘automated decision’ under Article 22 of the GDPR, when it wasn’t SCHUFA making the “decision”, but rather the third party using SCHUFA information to deny the credit application. The Administrative Court of Wiesbaden referred this case to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. It sought clarification on the application of GDPR provisions, especially in relation to the rights and protections afforded to individuals against automated decision-making and profiling.

The ECJ held that in circumstances such as those at issue, in which the probability value established by a credit information agency and communicated to a bank plays a determining role in the granting of credit, the establishment of that value must be qualified in itself as a decision which has ‘legal effects concerning [a data subject] or similarly significantly [affecting] [a data subject]’ within the meaning of Article 22(1) of the GDPR.

The impact of this ruling extends beyond SCHUFA, signalling to businesses (from banks to phone companies and e-commerce firms) across the EU the importance of aligning credit decision-making processes with GDPR requirements. It underscores the need for a balanced approach in using consumer credit ratings, ensuring that such practices do not compromise individual privacy rights as enshrined in the GDPR. The judgment serves as a reminder for businesses to evaluate and potentially adjust their processes in using third-party credit scoring services to ensure compliance with EU privacy regulations.

Analysis of the Judgment

Expanding the Scope of Automated Decision-Making

  • The ECJ’s interpretation of ‘automated decision-making’ under Article 22 of the GDPR was a pivotal aspect of the judgment. This broadened understanding now encapsulates a variety of AI-driven processes beyond direct decision-making.
  • SCHUFA’s methodology in creating credit scores, although an indirect factor in financial decisions, was deemed to fall within this expanded scope. The ruling acknowledges the of such systems on individual rights and economic opportunities.

Emphasising Transparency and Protecting Individual Rights

  • Central to the ECJ’s decision was the emphasis on transparency and fairness in automated processes in the GDPR. The judgment resonates with the GDPR’s objective to safeguard individuals against opaque and potentially biased automated decisions.
  • The GDPR entities like SCHUFA to provide clear, understandable information about their data processing methodologies, ensuring that individuals can effectively challenge or enquire about decisions affecting them.

Asserting the Need for a Legal Basis in Data Processing

  • The ECJ reaffirmed the GDPR’s requirement for a legal basis under Article 6 for processing activities like those carried out by SCHUFA. This aspect of the judgment underscores the GDPR’s principle-driven approach, mandating entities to rigorously justify their data processing activities.

Data Retention

Restricting Data Retention Post-Debt Discharge

  • The ECJ’s stance on data retention, especially regarding information on an individual’s discharge from remaining debts, addresses a critical aspect of financial privacy.
  • The ruling posits that retaining such data beyond the duration held in public insolvency registers contravenes the GDPR, highlighting the importance of allowing individuals a fresh start in their economic lives.

Impact of Data Retention on Financial Standing

  • The judgment articulates that prolonged data retention adversely affects individuals’ solvency assessments, continuing to serve as a negative marker in their financial profiles.

Balancing Rights, Obligations, and Interests

  • In Germany, data retention for six months post-discharge is legislated. The ECJ considers that beyond this period, an individual’s rights to data erasure outweighs the public interest in accessing such information.
  • For parallel data storage by entities like SCHUFA, the ECJ emphasises the need to balance interests to assess lawfulness, maintaining the data subject’s right to object to processing and request erasure of data.

Broader Impacts and Future Directions

Implications for Various Sectors Utilising AI and Automated Decisions

  • The judgment has far-reaching implications beyond credit scoring, affecting sectors like healthcare, insurance, and employment, where AI decision-making is integral.
  • Businesses in these areas must reassess their AI and data processing strategies in light of the judgment, ensuring GDPR compliance and upholding transparency.

Operational and Compliance Challenges

  • The ruling introduces new layers of complexity in GDPR compliance, particularly for AI-driven decision-making systems. It necessitates a thorough legal and ethical review of AI operations, potentially demanding significant operational adjustments.

Global Influence and Standard Setting

  • As GDPR has extraterritorial implications, this decision is poised to influence global data protection practices and AI governance standards, setting a benchmark for responsible AI deployment.

Navigating the Intersection of Innovation and Privacy

  • The judgment does not stymie AI innovation but redirects it towards more ethical and legally compliant pathways. It underscores the necessity of developing AI within a framework that respects privacy and fundamental rights.


The ECJ’s ruling in Case C-634/21 is a watershed moment, highlighting the critical balance between the innovative use of AI and the protection of individual rights under the GDPR. It serves as a roadmap for compliance and a catalyst for ethical AI practices, signalling a new era where technology and privacy co-exist in harmony. The judgment stands as a testament to the evolving legal landscape in AI and data protection, guiding entities towards responsible and transparent use of AI technologies.