DPA case 100/2026 – Complaint Upheld (Belgium, 2026)
General GDPR enforcement action
This case relates to broader data protection obligations, not specifically to cookie or consent banner compliance. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
The Belgian Data Protection Authority dismissed a complaint about surveillance cameras in an apartment complex. This ruling is important because it clarifies how consent for surveillance should be handled in residential settings.
What happened
A complaint regarding the use of surveillance cameras in an apartment complex was investigated.
Who was affected
Residents of the apartment complex who were subject to video surveillance.
What the authority found
The authority found that residents could not freely consent to the surveillance due to the circumstances.
Why this matters
This decision highlights the need for clear consent practices in surveillance, which is crucial for property managers and landlords.
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: 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
A resident (the data subject) filed a complaint with the Belgian DPA (APD) regarding the recording of images within an apartment complex (‘Residence II’) via six surveillance cameras aimed at the shared courtyard and underground garage, as well as the transmission of surveillance videos to a processor and a specific phone application. Previously, the DPA issued Decision 36/2020 regarding the same processing activities in the apartment complex ‘Residence I’. The DPA launched an investigation into the processing activities invoked in the complaint. During the investigation, the DPA identified a controller in charge of the processing activities before 29 September 2020 and emphasised that Decision 36/2020 was addressed to only that controller. Furthermore, it noted that the controller at the time partially complied with the DPA decision 36/2020 by deactivating the surveillance cameras at Residence I and transferring the responsibility for the use of the already installed cameras to the present controller. The DPA also clarified that the “Y1 Residence” represented by the property manager was the controller starting from October 2020 for the surveillance cameras in Residence II and dismissed the complaint with regard to the other entity named in the complaint. Firstly, the DPA found that residents could not freely give their consent under Article 6(1)(a) GDPR in conjunction with Article 4(11) GDPR since the documents provided in relation with the apartment complex stated an obligation of the residents to consent to video surveillance. Furthermore, the DPA held that the mere presence of the surveillance cameras, even after their deactivation in 2023, and the residents’ lack of control over their functioning constituted a violation of the residents’ right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, the DPA held that the current controller must decide whether to use the surveillance cameras or not, but may only do so under a le
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 100/2026 in BE
This is the only recorded action for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. DPA case 100/2026 - Belgium (2026). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: