DPA case 2026-0.028.647 – Dismissed (Austria, 2026)

The data subject and the controller are related by marriage and live in separate units within the same property, parts of which, notably the garage and access areas, are jointly used. Their relationship is strained. In 2022, the controller installed a camera in the shared garage after a cabinet had been damaged. The data subject was aware of this installation at the time. The camera was later destroyed by an unknown person and disposed of within the same year. Also, since March 2024, due to ongoing tensions and feeling subjectively threatened, the controller has been using a bodycam when leaving his residential unit. But the usage of the bodycam was limited to the jointly used private property. The bodycam is motion-activated and records the data subject if he enters the recording area on the shared property. The data subject lodged a complaint with the Data Protection Authority (DSB). The DSB rejected the complaint in full. Regarding the garage camera, the DSB held that the complaint was time-barred under [https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10001597 § 24(4) DSG.] The data subject had knowledge of the camera installation in mid-2022 but failed to file the complaint within the one-year limitation period. As a result, the right to have the complaint examined had lapsed. Regarding the bodycam, the DSB held that the processing fell within the “household exemption” under Article 2(2)(c) GDPR. The controller’s recordings were made exclusively in a personal and familial context, on jointly used private property, and were not disclosed outside the family sphere. Because the processing was purely personal or familial in nature, the GDPR did not apply, and the DSB therefore lacked jurisdiction to examine the complaint.