Are Cameras On Private Property Used In Court

The Belgian Data Protection Dominance ('BDPA') recently issued a decision regarding camera surveillance by a natural person. It concerned the unlawful filming of the public domain and individual holding with security cameras. The Belgian DPA decided that the defendants violated the provisions of the GDPR, resulting in a fine of 1.500 EUR.

The Belgian DPA received a complaint from two data subjects regarding the unlawful filming of the public domain and their individual property with security cameras. In this example, the defendants had a video surveillance system installed on their premises consisting of v cameras. The neighbors of the defendants filed a complaint with the BDPA as certain cameras filmed office of the public domain and the private property of the plaintiffs -which the plaintiffs were informed of by a third party (independent expert) in the course of an ongoing environmental lawsuit between the plaintiffs and the defendants.

Those images provided in the court case by the independent expert were -according to the plaintiffs -not only the bear witness of unlawful recording of the public domain and their private property, but likewise of the unlawful manual of the recordings of those images to unauthorized third parties (i.e. the independent skillful).

In its determination, the BDPA emphasized that the European Court of Justice has previously confirmed that the recording of images of persons with surveillance cameras falls nether the concept of 'personal data' within the meaning of the European union data protection standards. The surveillance past means of video recordings of individuals, which are stored, is an automatic processing of personal data within the significant of Article two(1) of the GDPR. The processing of personal data in this context must therefore also do good from the same level of protection equally provided for past the GDPR.

Regarding the filming, the defendants invoked their legitimate interest ("maximize the protection of their property") as legal basis. The BDPA decided that the conditions for the apply of this legal bases for processing were not fulfilled.

Firstly, the processing of the personal data was not necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests as less intrusive measures were possible, east.g. by the adjustment of the position of the surveillance cameras.

Secondly, the BDPA stated in its decision that such interests cannot override the fundamental rights and freedoms of the information subject. The fact that the surveillance cameras had been fix in a manner of continuous monitoring, i.eastward. 24 hours a twenty-four hours, seven days a week, of the public domain and the plaintiffs private belongings, constituted a serious infringement according to the BDPA.

In addition, the BDPA indicated that, the filming did non but interfere with the (primal) rights of the plaintiffs. Other people, such as the children of the plaintiffs and drivers passing by on the route in forepart of the defendants' house, were also being recorded and therefore their (fundamental) rights were likewise violated.

Regarding the transmission of the recordings, which is a processing activity in the meaning the GDPR, the BDPA decided that no legal basis existed for the transfer of the recordings to the contained good and thus violated the provisions of the GDPR.

For both infringements, the Belgian DPA issued a reprimand and imposed a fine of EUR ane,500.