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

DPA case 2025-0.607.071 – Complaint Upheld (Austria, 2025)

Complaint Upheld
Datenschutzbehörde10 September 2025Austria
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.

Neighbors operating a restaurant in Austria were found to have violated a person's privacy by installing surveillance cameras that recorded public areas. This is significant because it shows that even in the name of security, privacy rights must be respected.

What happened

The restaurant owners installed cameras that recorded public spaces and private individuals without consent.

Who was affected

The individual whose privacy was invaded by the restaurant's surveillance cameras.

What the authority found

The authority determined that the restaurant's surveillance was excessive and violated the individual's right to privacy under GDPR.

Why this matters

This ruling highlights that businesses must balance security measures with respect for individual privacy. Companies should evaluate their surveillance practices to ensure they are not infringing on people's rights.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 7(4) GDPR
Art. 58(2) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 5(GDPR)
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 7(4) GDPR
Art. 58(GDPR)

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

National Law Articles
AI-identified
§ 1 DSG

Source checks

Secondary-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 18 October 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, 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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

A data subject filed a complaint with the Austrian Data Protection Authority (DSB) alleging a violation of his right to privacy by his neighbours (the controller). The controller, who operated a restaurant and reside in the same building, installed five video cameras on their property. The cameras recorded continuously, including audio, and stored the footage for 14 days. Three cameras captured parts of a public street that the data subject regularly used, while the remaining cameras also recorded the restaurant’s guests and employees. The controllers justified the surveillance by referring to prior incidents in which the data subject had behaved aggressively and some incidents were even criminally relevant. Nonetheless, the cameras monitored public areas and data subjects who had not consented to being recorded. No written consent was obtained from employees or guests, and the extent of the monitoring exceeded what could be justified under the circumstances. The DSB held that the controllers’ video surveillance violated the data subject’s right to privacy under [https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/NormDokument.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10001597&Artikel=1&Paragraf=1&Anlage=&Uebergangsrecht= § 1 DSG] and the GDPR. Although the controllers had legitimate interests under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR in documenting the data subject’s past aggressive and criminal behavior, the video surveillance failed the necessity test due to the fact that the continuous, broad, and long-term monitoring of a public street was disproportionate and less intrusive measures existed . Therefore, the surveillance of public space was not necessary and violated the right to privacy. The DSB further held that the monitoring of employees and guests through some cameras was also unnecessary and disproportionate because continuous monitoring of employees in their workplace is a highly intrusive measure and affects human dignity when data subjects are filmed during most of their working time without

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 2025-0.607.071 in AT

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

Details

Decision Date

10 September 2025

Authority

Datenschutzbehörde

GDPRhub ID

gdprhub-9644

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 2025-0.607.071 - Austria (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: