- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Lithuania · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
DPA case 3R-753 – Complaint Upheld (Lithuania, 2025)
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 Lithuanian neighbor installed a CCTV camera that recorded part of their neighbor's property during a dispute. This case is important because it shows that even in personal disputes, privacy laws apply to how people use surveillance technology.
What happened
The controller used a CCTV camera to monitor their property, which also captured footage of the neighbor's land.
Who was affected
The neighbor whose property was recorded by the CCTV camera.
What the authority found
The DPA ordered the controller to adjust the camera's view to prevent recording the neighbor's property, but dismissed other claims about drone footage.
Why this matters
This ruling highlights the need for individuals to respect privacy laws when using surveillance equipment. Neighbors should be aware that recording others without consent can lead to legal issues.
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.
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
The controller (a natural person) and the data subject are neighbours involved in a legal dispute over their borders. The controller installed a CCTV camera on their plot of land. The camera’s field of view was initially obscured in order to exclude an area which did not belong to him. Following the repeated and unlawful destruction of the controller’s gate at the hand of the data subject, the controller unveiled the camera in order to monitor the entire field of view, including the gate. As a result, the camera covered both the controller’s gate and a part of the data subject’s property. The data subject filed a complaint, claiming that the data subject had no legal basis to record their property. Furthermore, the data subject claimed that the controller did not comply with their oral request to delete the footage. Finally, the data subject complained that the controller unlawfully recorded their property with a drone and later used the footage as evidence in court. The DPA ordered the controller to move the camera or obscure part of its field of view, in order to prevent the recording of the data subject’s property. The DPA did not uphold the data subject’s other claims. The DPA held that the recording via the drone, and the subsequent use of the footage in court proceedings, fell under the GDPR’s household exemption (Article 2(2)(c) GDPR). Additionally, the DPA dismissed the claim over the right to erasure because the data subject failed to prove that they requested the erasure in the first place. = The DPA first clarified that the controller could not rely on the household exemption of the GDPR because they were recording not only their own property but also the data subject’s. In this regard, the DPA acknowledged that ownership for some of the recorded area was controversial and constituted the object of pending litigation. However, the data subject was the owner according to cadastral data at the time of the investigation, which formed legal proof. The DPA
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 3R-753 in LT
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 3R-753 - Lithuania (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: