DPA case 3R-998 – Dismissed (Lithuania, 2025)
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 complaint about CCTV cameras was dismissed because the neighbor could not prove the cameras were recording. This matters because it shows that claims about privacy violations need solid evidence.
What happened
The DPA dismissed a complaint regarding CCTV cameras, finding no evidence of recording.
Who was affected
The neighbor who claimed their property was being monitored by the cameras.
What the authority found
The DPA concluded that no personal data processing occurred since the cameras were not actively recording.
Why this matters
This case underscores the importance of providing evidence in privacy complaints. Individuals should be aware that without proof, claims about surveillance may not hold up in investigations.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Archived or cached source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 18 October 2026.
Processing notes: national law identified.
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
An individual (the data controller) installed CCTV cameras on his property. His neighbor (the data subject) filed a complaint, claiming that the cameras were monitoring his yard. During the investigation, the controller claimed that the cameras were not recording. The data subject did not provide any evidence or argument to counter this claim. The DPA considered that the data subject failed to provide evidence that the complainant’s cameras were active and were recording footage. On these grounds, the DPA concluded that no processing of personal data took place and consequently dismissed the complaint. In this regard, the DPA referred to EDPB guidanceEDPB, 'Guidelines 3/2019 on processing of personal data through video devices', 20 January 2020 (Version 2.0), available [https://www.edpb.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/file1/edpb_guidelines_201903_video_devices_en_0.pdf here]. and clarified that the GDPR does not apply to dummy cameras.
Outcome
Dismissed
The complaint or investigation was dismissed.
Related Enforcement Actions (0)
No other enforcement actions found for DPA case 3R-998 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-998 - Lithuania (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: