- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Belgium · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
DPA case 45/2026 – Complaint Upheld (Belgium, 2026)
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.
The Belgian data protection authority upheld a complaint against two neighbors for using a surveillance camera that filmed the public street. This matters because it emphasizes the need for individuals to respect the privacy of others when using surveillance technology.
What happened
Neighbors installed a surveillance camera that filmed the street, which was deemed unlawful.
Who was affected
The individual who complained, along with her family, who were filmed by the camera.
What the authority found
The authority found that the neighbors could not justify their use of the camera under privacy laws.
Why this matters
This ruling serves as a reminder that using surveillance cameras comes with responsibilities. People should consider privacy implications and ensure their cameras do not invade others' privacy.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Linked-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
An individual (the data subject) lodged a complaint with the Belgian DPA (APD) regarding the installation and use of a surveillance camera by two neighbours (presumed controllers). The data subject claimed that the camera was adjustable, faced and filmed the street in front of the controllers’ house since January 2023 and that it featured a flashlight activated by a motion detector at night. The complaint was part of a larger dispute between the parties. The controllers claimed that the installation of the surveillance camera was in response to an incident where the tires of their car had been punctured. The DPA understood the controllers’ claim about the installation of the surveillance camera as a deterrent against tire punctures as a legitimate interest for personal data processing in the sense of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. However, the DPA held that the controllers could not rely on this legal basis for the processing of personal data via the surveillance camera. The DPA explained that the camera captured images of the public road, making the personal data processing unlawful under Article 7§ 2 para. 7 of the Surveillance Camera Act. The DPA also emphasised that the camera footage infringed the data subject’s and her family’s right to privacy and right to data protection by processing frequently their personal data due to placement of the camera. Therefore, the DPA found that the controllers may have breached Article 5(1)(a) GDPR and Article 6 GDPR in conjunction with Article 7 § 2 para. 7 of the Surveillance Camera Act and issued a warning to ensure their surveillance camera no longer films public roads.
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 45/2026 in BE
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 45/2026 - Belgium (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: