DPA case 98/2024 – Dismissed (Belgium, 2024)
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 Belgian resident complained about CCTV cameras installed by their neighbor, claiming some were pointed at their garden without permission. The data protection authority closed the case, noting the neighbor failed to respond to requests for access to the recordings. This highlights the importance of responding to access requests under privacy laws.
What happened
A resident's complaint about their neighbor's CCTV cameras was dismissed by the Belgian data protection authority.
Who was affected
The resident whose garden was allegedly monitored by the neighbor's cameras.
What the authority found
The authority closed the case due to the neighbor's failure to respond to the resident's access request, but noted a violation of privacy laws.
Why this matters
This case emphasizes the need for individuals to respond to access requests and the importance of complying with privacy regulations when using surveillance equipment.
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 — 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
A resident (controller) installed five cameras (CCTV) within their premises (a house). The controller obtained the consent of their neighbour (data subject) to process the CCTV data. A data subject claimed two cameras covered their garden, which was contrary to what they agreed to. Then, the data subject asked the controller to move the cameras adequately and give the data subject access to the recordings to verify their content. Despite multiple tries by the data subject, the controller did not respond to the request. In the meantime, the controller installed an additional camera – a doorbell camera facing the data subject’s driveway and private entrance. The data subject consulted the Belgian DPA (APD/GBA) on what further actions they should take. The DPA suggested to contact the local police or to start proceedings before the DPA. Following the DPA's advice, the data subject contacted the Police who found that the setting of two cameras was changed, so they did not cover the data subject’s premises. Nevertheless, the doorbell camera was programmed to send a notification every time someone showed up within its range. The data subject, requested the controller to change the setting of the doorbell camera as well, but the controller did not reply. Later, the controller replaced two cameras with new, advanced models (vide-angle lenses) and changed the location of the doorbell, which covered not only the data subject’s premises but also a pavement and a street. As the mediation before the DPA was unsuccessful (the controller did not respond to official letter of DPA), the data subject decided to lodge a complaint with the DPA. The DPA decided to close the case due to the expediency. First, the DPA noted the controller was obliged to answer data subject’s access request under Article 15 GDPR, which they obviously failed to do. Hence, the controller violated Article 12(3) GDPR. Second, the DPA noted that the controller violated Article 31 GDPR, because they did n
Outcome
Dismissed
The complaint or investigation was dismissed.
Related Enforcement Actions (0)
No other enforcement actions found for DPA case 98/2024 in BE
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 98/2024 - Belgium (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: