e-mail

Addresses in the

Association.

3. February 2026

from

Clemens Pfitzer

Can an association member request the e-mail addresses of all other members from the association if he or she wants to organize an opposition before a general meeting? Does data protection stand in the way of such information? The Federal Court of Justice has decided these questions.

What is it all about?

A sports club refuses to give a member the email addresses of other members. The member wants to organize an opposition to a controversial sale of land before a general meeting. The Federal Court of Justice grants the member with Decision of 28.10.2025 – Ref. II ZR 41/24 law – and addresses issues of data protection law.

The dispute

A registered sports club was to vote on the sale of a significant area of land. A member and an internally organized initiative wanted to write a counterstatement to the arguments of the executive committee before the general meeting and send it directly to all club members. The member asked the association to provide their email addresses. The association refused.

Since at least 2018, the association had promised its members when they joined that their email addresses would only be used for membership administration purposes. The association therefore argued that this promise precluded the disclosure. In addition, the GDPR prevents such disclosure of personal data.

The vote took place anyway. Out of 2,784 members entitled to vote, 17 took part in the virtual general meeting and at least 548 in the previous written postal vote. The members voted in favor of the Executive Committee and approved the sale of the property.

The member sued for a declaration that the resolutions passed at the general meeting were null and void.

What did the Federal Court of Justice decide?

The Federal Court of Justice confirmed that the challenged resolutions of the association are null and void and thus confirmed the decision of the Munich Higher Regional Court.

There is a right to the publication of e-mail addresses.

The Federal Court of Justice confirms that a member of an association has a law right to inspect the association’s books and documents. This also includes the list of members and the email addresses contained therein. A legitimate interest in the disclosure is given if the member wants to organize an opposition against a decision intended by the board before a general meeting. The Federal Court of Justice emphasizes that the cooperation of the members is an elementary component of the decision-making process under association law.

No restrictions due to association commitments or alternative communication channels.

The Federal Court of Justice explicitly addressed the association’s argument that it had promised its members that their email addresses would only be used for membership administration purposes. However, according to the Federal Court of Justice, the right to information cannot be restricted either by the association’s articles of association or by such promises. Association members cannot justifiably rely on such a promise.

Similarly, the member does not have to be referred to alternative communication channels such as an association magazine, an internet forum set up by the association or a trustee solution. It must be left to the member to decide how and to whom they wish to turn.

The GDPR does not prevent disclosure.

Joining an association constitutes a contract within the meaning of Art. 6 para. 1 lit. b GDPR. The Federal Court of Justice emphasizes that the concept of contract here is not to be understood in terms of civil law, but rather in terms of data protection law and Union autonomy. The only decisive factor is whether the legal relationship is based on private autonomy – not whether it is a contract within the meaning of the German Civil Code (BGB). The disclosure of email addresses is necessary for the fulfillment of this contract, as it is necessary for the exercise of members’ rights.

Why are the resolutions null and void?

In the opinion of the Federal Court of Justice, the refusal to disclose the email addresses was a relevant formal defect in the resolution. The Federal Court of Justice does not apply a causality test here, but rather examines the relevance of the procedural violation. If an objectively judging member of the association would possibly have decided differently had they been informed of the initiative’s arguments in good time – whether in terms of attending the meeting or exercising their voting rights – the nullity of the resolutions is justified.

The Federal Court of Justice also found that the initiative was structurally disadvantaged by the association’s procedure. The executive committee was able to promote its position to all members without restriction, whereas the member should have been limited to those who had actively agreed to be contacted beforehand. This asymmetry was not compatible with the principle of equal opportunities.

What does this mean for clubs?

This decision has practical consequences for every registered association:

• Association statutes and data protection notices cannot override the members’ right to information. Promises to use email addresses only for certain purposes have no legal effect in the face of a legitimate request for information.
• Trustee solutions are not sufficient. An association cannot dictate to a member that they should direct their request via the Executive Committee or a trustee. The member is entitled to the law of direct contact.
• Formal deficiencies in resolutions can lead to nullity. This is the case even if the majority ratios in the vote would not have been affected in the end. The Federal Court of Justice does not examine whether the decision would have been different without the error, but whether an objectively judging member might have acted differently.

Conclusion

We are happy to

advise you about

Data protection!

Contact form

Call now!