Grúas Barea, S.L.U. – Complaint Upheld (Spain, 2020)

The decision is the consequence of a complaint submitted by a Spanish citizen stating that the defendant has installed a video surveillance system allegedly pointing to a parking area without the consent of the owner of such area. The complaint included pictures proving that the video surveillance system was installed. The claimant was the landlord of the defendant. The defendant answered to the AEPD investigation requests stating that: (i) it has installed the corresponding information poster, (ii) it has installed six cameras in order to ensure the safety of its establishment, (iii) the cameras pointing to the parking are only recording heavy equipment, and, considering that the property is leased and that the defendant and the claimant do not have a good relationship, the defendant understands that this complaint is a pressure measure by the lessor, and (iv) the defendant is planning to leave the property before May 2020. The AEPD started the corresponding sanction procedure; after that, the defendant submitted the corresponding pleadings document, in which it declared that it has left the property and uninstalled all the cameras, attaching pictures of the same as a proof. As a result of its investigation, the AEPD considered that the claimant had a video surveillance system with an excessive orientation to an area out of its property, and without due cause: two of the six cameras were directly recording not only the entrance, but also the sidewalk and nearby road; in order to ensure the safety of the establishment it was not necessary to record such a big area. Thus, the AEPD understood that the video surveillance system infringed the data minimisation principle (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR) and, after considering certain factors [(i) the defendant has collaborated with the AEPD, (ii) there is no intentionality by the defendant, and (ii) the video surveillance system has been uninstalled and the property has been left by the defendant, but (iii) in the end, the alleged facts have been proven], it imposed a minor warning to the defendant.