Court case 7890/2026 – Court Ruling (Bulgaria, 2026)
General GDPR enforcement action
This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
A Bulgarian court ruled that a neighbor's CCTV camera was unlawfully monitoring another person's property. This matters because it highlights the importance of respecting privacy boundaries, especially for small business owners who might use surveillance systems.
What happened
A neighbor installed a CCTV camera that extended its view into another person's property without consent.
Who was affected
The person whose property was monitored by the neighbor's CCTV camera.
What the authority found
The court found that the neighbor did not have a valid legal basis for processing personal data, violating privacy rules.
Why this matters
This case shows that individuals can challenge unlawful surveillance, which is crucial for anyone using cameras for security. Businesses should ensure their surveillance does not infringe on others' privacy.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Secondary-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 5 August 2026.
Processing notes: articles corrected, authority corrected.
Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources
A data subject lodged a complaint with the Bulgarian DPA (CPDP), alleging that her neighbour (the controller) was unlawfully monitoring her property through CCTV. She claimed that a camera had been mounted on a metal structure on a third-floor terrace of the neighbouring building and installed in a manner that extended into the space above her property. According to the data subject, the camera had the technical capacity to identify individuals and objects throughout her property. The controller did not deny installing the camera but argued that it was directed towards the fence and an outbuilding on his own property. He also stated that a second camera had been installed on the western façade of the building. The controller claimed that both cameras were used solely to monitor his own property and the processing was lawful under the GDPR. The DPA carried out an on-site investigation and found that the CCTV system consisted of two independent cameras operated through separate software applications. Both cameras could be rotated in all directions and could use an automatic tracking function. The recordings were stored on memory cards for approximately 15 days before being automatically deleted, and only the controller had access to the system. The DPA noted that Camera 1 recorded the northern part of the controller’s yard, his house and the fence bordering the data subject’s property and Camera 2 recorded the roof of the controller’s house and a small part of the data subject’s yard. The DPA reviewed the oldest available footage and noticed that Camera 2 had recorded the data subject’s house and yard. The inspection report stated that the system could process personal data relating to individuals on both properties, but did not allow the identification of individuals or facial recognition. The DPA pointed out that warning stickers informing individuals of the video surveillance were displayed at the property. It found the complaint well founded in relation to Camera
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 7890/2026 in BG
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 7890/2026 - Bulgaria (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: