- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Lithuania · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
DPA case 3R- 1876 (2.13-1.E) – Violation Found (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 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.
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 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
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 3R- 1876 (2.13-1.E) - Lithuania (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: