Court case W214 2230473-1 – Court Ruling (Austria, 2020)
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.
In Austria, a court case involved a tenant installing a non-working security camera in a shared hallway to deter burglars. The privacy authority found no privacy rights were violated since the camera wasn't recording anyone. This case shows that not all surveillance setups automatically breach privacy laws.
What happened
A tenant installed a non-functional security camera in a shared hallway to deter burglars.
Who was affected
Other tenants in the apartment building who were concerned about potential surveillance.
What the authority found
The privacy authority decided there was no breach of privacy rights because the camera was non-functional and did not record anyone.
Why this matters
This case highlights that not all security measures, like non-working cameras, infringe on privacy rights. It reassures property owners that deterrent measures might not always lead to legal issues if they don't actually record people.
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
The complainant was the beneficiary of a property on which there was an apartment building with numerous tenants. The alleged controller was the tenant of one of the flats and, in the course of installing a security door in the public corridor area of the property in question, had also had a functioning surveillance camera installed. According to the complainant, only the alleged controller had access to the recorded images and the possibility to use them, and this behaviour drastically interfered with the rights to respect for the private and family life of the other tenants, in particular to the confidentiality of the data concerned, as no one other than the alleged controller had access to this data and no one knew what happened to the images. The other tenants and the owner of the house had not given their consent, which was why the recordings were, in the applicant's opinion, inadmissible under section 12(4)(1) of the Data Protection Act. Therefore, she filed a complaint with the DPA, asserting a violation of the right to confidentiality. After an investigation, the authority dismissed the complaint on the grounds of violation of the right to secrecy and the right to deletion as unfounded and rejected the applications for uninstallation of the camera, for an order to refrain from future interventions and for the initiation of administrative penal proceedings. The authority found that there had been a burglary at the address mentioned, which was why the co-participant, in agreement with his son, had installed the video camera in question in 2010. The video camera was located on the first floor and was directed at the entrance to the flats XXXX and XXXX. The camera was non-functional and served as a deterrent against burglars. The other party had not used the video camera to take any pictures showing the complainant. In its assessment of the evidence, the DPA summarised that the statements of the co-participant were credible and that there was also no apparent r
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case W214 2230473-1 in AT
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case W214 2230473-1 - Austria (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: