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

DPA case NAIH/4410-1/2023 – €125 Fine (Hungary, 2023)

€125Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság28 April 2023Hungary
final
Fine

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 solarium studio in Hungary was fined for improperly using CCTV cameras without proper justification. The data protection authority found that the studio failed to show it had a valid reason for the surveillance and did not inform people adequately. This case emphasizes the need for businesses to have clear legal grounds for monitoring customers.

What happened

The solarium studio installed CCTV cameras but could not justify their use under data protection laws.

Who was affected

Customers and employees of the solarium studio whose images were recorded by the CCTV system.

What the authority found

The authority concluded that the studio did not provide a valid legal basis for the video surveillance, violating GDPR requirements.

Why this matters

This ruling highlights the importance of having a legitimate reason for surveillance and ensuring proper communication with those being monitored. Businesses should review their surveillance practices to comply with data protection laws.

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

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

Source checks

Secondary-source text retrieved.

Review needed — 18 October 2026.

Processing notes: amount discrepancy.

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 solarium studio in Hungary, the controller, had installed a CCTV system within its premises. Although the decision is not clear in this regard, an individual, the data subject, whose image had been recorded by such system, objected to the processing under Article 21 GDPR. Following a notification, the DPA initiated an ex officio investigation with regard to the solarium studio’s video surveillance system. The controller argued that it had a legal basis under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR for carrying out the camera surveillance on the premises in order to, inter alia, protect the property. However, despite the DPA’s multiple requests, the controller did not provide any balancing of interests test, nor did it make any statement to the authority of having such document. Furthermore, in light of Article 13(1)(2) GDPR, the controller claimed that there were printed privacy notices available at the front desk of studio. With regard to its employees, the controller claimed that it had provided information on the processing operations orally and within the job descriptions. However, the controller did not provide evidence to support its statements. The DPA emphasised that a controller is required to make a prior balancing test under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. However, the controller did not provide such assessment and the DPA concluded that the controller could not rely on a legitimate interest as a legal basis required under Article 6(1) GDPR. Furthermore, the DPA noted that even if a balancing of interests had been carried out, the processing at stake could have not have been justified by legitimate interests. In particular, the controller did not demonstrate the suitability of the cameras in question to the announced processing purpose (presumably, the protection of property), nor their proportionality. The DPA viewed that, in order to protect the property, other available solutions (e.g. lock, padlock, window bars, safe, alarm, motion detector, security guard, etc.) may in so

Related Enforcement Actions (0)

No other enforcement actions found for DPA case NAIH/4410-1/2023 in HU

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

Details

Fine Date

28 April 2023

Authority

Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság

Fine Amount

€125

50,000 HUF

GDPRhub ID

gdprhub-6145

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/4410-1/2023 - Hungary (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: