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

DPA case 3R- 1876 (2.13-1.E) – Violation Found (Lithuania, 2025)

Violation Found
Valstybine duomenu apsaugos inspekcija30 December 2025Lithuania
final
Violation Found

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 public hospital was found to have unlawfully recorded video and audio in sensitive areas like operating rooms. This is significant because it emphasizes the need for hospitals to respect patient privacy while ensuring safety. The ruling sets clear boundaries on where surveillance can be conducted.

What happened

The hospital's video surveillance system recorded in areas where patients should expect privacy, such as examination rooms.

Who was affected

Patients and staff at the hospital who were recorded without proper justification.

What the authority found

The authority ruled that the hospital's surveillance practices violated GDPR's balancing of interests requirement.

Why this matters

This ruling sets a precedent for how healthcare facilities must balance safety and privacy. It reminds all organizations to carefully consider the implications of surveillance in sensitive areas.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 5(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 6(1) GDPR
Art. 9(2) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 5(1)(a) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 9(2) GDPR

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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The controller is a public hospital operating a video surveillance system with 26 cameras installed across its premises, including entrances, corridors, patient admission areas, outpatient examination rooms, and three operating rooms. Most indoor cameras also recorded audio. The stated purposes of the surveillance were to ensure the safety of staff, patients and property and, in operating rooms, to ensure the smooth organisation of work. Following a notification by a data subject, the State Data Protection Inspectorate (DPA) initiated an ex-officio investigation and carried out an on-site inspection. The inspection revealed that certain cameras partially covered patient examination areas and permanent employee workplaces. In operating rooms, cameras recorded areas close to operating tables and transmitted live video and audio to a workstation, although the controller could not clearly identify who had access to the live feed or whether recordings were stored. The controller relied on legitimate interest under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR as the legal basis and had conducted a data protection impact assessment and a balancing test. It argued that data subjects were informed by signing hospital admission documents and that access to video and audio data was restricted. During the inspection, it was also found that video recordings were stored longer than the defined retention periods. The DPA found that video surveillance in general areas of the hospital, such as entrances, corridors, and foyers, could in principle be based on the controller’s legitimate interest in ensuring safety, provided that camera views were appropriately limited. However, video surveillance in examination rooms, admission and emergency examination rooms, and geriatric care units was unlawful insofar as camera views covered patient examination areas or permanent employee workplaces, as this failed the balancing of interests required under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. The authority further held that video sur

Outcome

Violation Found

The DPA found a violation but did not impose a fine.

Related Enforcement Actions (0)

No other enforcement actions found for DPA case 3R- 1876 (2.13-1.E) in LT

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

Details

Decision Date

30 December 2025

Authority

Valstybine duomenu apsaugos inspekcija

GDPRhub ID

gdprhub-9734

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 3R- 1876 (2.13-1.E) - Lithuania (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: