Úrad na ochranu osobných údajov Slovenskej republiky (ÚOOÚ) – Court Ruling (Slovakia, 2026)

The DPA carried out an ex officio inspection of the Rajec’s City Council, the controller, concerning its processing of personal data through a CCTV system. On 27 August 2019, the DPA issued a first-instance decision imposing a €10,000 fine and corrective measures. Following an appeal by the controller, the DPA issued a second-instance decision on 29 November 2019. It partially amended the first-instance decision and reduced the fine to €9,000. The DPA found that the controller had violated the principle of transparency under Article 5(1)(a) GDPR by failing to specify the legal basis for CCTV processing in its records of processing activities and by failing to provide information to data subjects before they entered the monitored area. The DPA also found a violation of the storage limitation principle under Article 5(1)(e) GDPR. According to the DPA, the controller retained CCTV footage for longer than necessary. Although the controller had set a seven-day retention period, the inspection found one recording that had been retained for around 20 days. The controller challenged the DPA’s decision before the administrative court. It argued, among other things, that its records of processing activities referred to relevant national laws and that the GDPR did not require a precise citation of Article 6 GDPR in such records. It also argued that, at the time of the inspection, there were no binding rules on how CCTV information notices had to be provided, and that the single over-retained recording was a one-off human error without consequences for data subjects. During the court proceedings, the Administrative Court of Bratislava examined whether the operative part of the DPA’s decision met the requirements applicable to administrative penalties. The court focused on whether the alleged infringements were described with sufficient precision in terms of the act, time, place and manner of commission. The court annulled the DPA’s decision and remanded the case. The court he