Enforcing jurisdiction
Hungary · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation

DPA case NAIH-4177-………./2021 – Complaint Upheld (Hungary, 2021)

Complaint Upheld
Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság13 September 2021Hungary
final
Complaint Upheld

Privacy enforcement record

This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.

A tenant in Hungary complained about a motion-detecting camera that recorded public areas of their apartment complex. The ruling is important because it clarifies that using cameras in shared spaces must respect privacy rights. It sets guidelines for how surveillance should be conducted in residential settings.

What happened

The Hungarian DPA upheld a complaint against a tenant's camera that recorded public areas without proper justification.

Who was affected

A tenant in the apartment complex who felt their privacy was violated by the camera's recordings was affected.

What the authority found

The DPA ruled that the camera's use was not justified under privacy laws, as it captured unnecessary public areas.

Why this matters

This case sets a precedent for how surveillance cameras should be used in residential settings, emphasizing the need for proportionality and necessity in monitoring public spaces.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 2(2)(c) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 13(1) GDPR
Art. 13(2) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 2(2)(c) GDPR
Art. 6(1) GDPR
Art. 13(1) GDPR
Art. 13(2) GDPR
Art. 58(2) GDPR

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

Source checks

Secondary-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 18 October 2026.

Processing notes: articles 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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

A tenant of a flat in an apartment complex argued that the motion-detecting camera installed in the complex by another tenant was unlawfully processing their personal data, since it partially recorded public spaces of the building. Moreover, the complainant also questioned whether the single sticker the defendants placed on the wall satisfied the information provision obligations under Article 13 GDPR. The defendants argued that the camera was used to protect their belongings, such as their door and gas/electricity meters, and therefore fell under the 'legitimate interest' legal ground under Article 6(1)(f). Finally, they noted that after reviewing the recordings captured by the camera, they made sure to delete them on a daily basis. The Hungarian DPA noted that the legitimate interest legal basis under Article 6(1)(f) could indeed be invoked for the protection of private property, including for the monitoring of public spaces under limited circumstances, as noted in point 27 of the EDPB in Guidelines 3/2019 on processing of personal data through video devices. However, the DPA held that this legal ground was not applicable in this case, since the camera's angle also captured areas that were not relevant for the purpose of protecting private property, and the defendant's activity therefore did not fulfil the requirements for necessity and proportionality. Moreover, the DPA recalled that in the CJEU - C‑212/13 - František Ryneš, the CJEU ruled that the exception for 'purely personal or household activity' under Article 2(2)(c) must be interpreted narrowly, and therefore does not apply to the recording of public spaces. Subsequently, the DPA ordered the defendant to either restrict the viewing angle of the camera, use blurring or masking technologies achieving the same effect, change the location of the camera, or cease its use altogether. The DPA also noted that one sticker warning that the camera is in use does not fulfil the provisions regarding information to

Outcome

Complaint Upheld

A data subject complaint that was upheld by the DPA.

Related Enforcement Actions (0)

No other enforcement actions found for DPA case NAIH-4177-………./2021 in HU

This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Decision Date

13 September 2021

Authority

Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság

GDPRhub ID

gdprhub-4264

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Automatically normalized and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case NAIH-4177-………./2021 - Hungary (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: