DPA case 2020010587 – Dismissed (Iceland, 2021)
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.
The Icelandic data protection authority dismissed a complaint about neighbors installing surveillance cameras. The decision is important because it clarifies that if cameras only capture images within private property, they may not fall under data protection laws. This helps homeowners understand their rights regarding privacy.
What happened
Two neighbors installed video cameras that the complainants believed recorded beyond their property.
Who was affected
The complainants, who were concerned their backyard was being recorded.
What the authority found
The authority found that the camera's field of vision was limited to the neighbors' property, so data protection laws did not apply.
Why this matters
This ruling sets a precedent that private surveillance within one's own property may not violate data protection laws, helping homeowners understand the limits of surveillance.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 18 October 2026.
No issues were reported by that automated check.
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
On 30 April 2019, two individuals (the Complainants) filed a complaint with the Icelandic DPA against their neighbors (Y and Z), arguing that the latter had installed video surveillance cameras on their house which were recording images beyond their private property. The Complainants were concerned in particular by the fact that those cameras could be recording images of their own backyard and house. On 2 May 2019, Y and Z were invited to submit their views to the Icelandic DPA. They explained that the camera in question was a mock-up that could not record any images. After the Icelandic DPA further questioned Y and Z on this camera, the latter admitted that the camera was currently disconnected but that they intended to connect it, and add two additional cameras at least. Y and Z however stressed that they would ensure, at the time of the installation, that the cameras would neither record the public space, nor the private property of the Complainants. Between October 2020 and August 2021, the Complainants notified the Icelandic DPA that at least four cameras had been installed by Y and Z. Following further requests from the Icelandic DPA, Y and Z provided the Icelandic DPA with screenshots from all their cameras. Those screenshots showed that the field of vision of the concerned cameras did not extend beyond Y and Z's private property. Given that the processing of personal data by Y and Z was limited to their private property, and did not extend to the public space of the private property of the Complainants, the Icelandic DPA considered that such processing was falling under the household exemption (Article 2(2)(c) GDPR), and that the GDPR therefore did not apply. For this reason, the Icelandic DPA dismissed the complaint.
Outcome
Dismissed
The complaint or investigation was dismissed.
Related Enforcement Actions (0)
No other enforcement actions found for DPA case 2020010587 in IS
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 2020010587 - Iceland (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: