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 addressed a complaint about a neighbor using CCTV to monitor another person's property. The court found that the cameras were directed at the neighbor's own property, which is significant because it clarifies the limits of lawful surveillance. Property owners should be cautious about how they use surveillance equipment to avoid invading others' privacy.
What happened
A neighbor was accused of unlawfully monitoring another person's property with CCTV cameras.
Who was affected
The person whose property was allegedly monitored by the neighbor's CCTV was affected.
What the authority found
The court determined that the CCTV usage was lawful as it was directed at the neighbor's own property and did not violate privacy laws.
Why this matters
This case highlights the importance of understanding privacy rights when using surveillance cameras. Property owners should ensure their cameras do not infringe on others' privacy.
GDPR Articles Cited
View original scraped data
Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.
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: