Court case RN 9 K 19.1061 – Court Ruling (Germany, 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.
A German court ruled against a man's request to stop video surveillance in a public park, stating that his legal approach was not permissible under GDPR. The case highlights the complexities of challenging surveillance measures in public spaces. This decision emphasizes the need for clear legal pathways when contesting data processing activities.
What happened
A man sought to stop video surveillance in a public park, arguing it was unnecessary and violated privacy rights.
Who was affected
The affected individual was a man who opposed the installation of video cameras in a public park he frequented.
What the authority found
The court found that the man's legal action to stop the surveillance was not permissible under GDPR, as it did not align with the available legal remedies.
Why this matters
This ruling highlights the challenges individuals face when contesting public surveillance measures and the importance of understanding the legal frameworks governing data protection. It suggests that those wishing to challenge such measures should ensure their legal actions align with GDPR's provisions.
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
The applicant seeks an order that the City of P. refrain from video surveillance of the "P.er K.-garten" and from recording it. In a letter dated 23 November 2017, the Police Inspectorate P. provided the defendant with information on the "P.er K.-garten" as a basis for possible political initiatives for municipal video surveillance. In this letter it is stated that the K.-garten has been a police focus for years, especially during the warm months (April to October). On 14 May 2018, the defendant's city council decided to install video surveillance. Signs were missing at other entrances to the K.-garten and in some places they were installed in an area that was already covered by the cameras. Because of its open design, the K.-garten could be entered without being able to see the signs. A detailed note on the modalities of the video surveillance was only attached to the surveillance house. The operating hours of the video surveillance were between 6:00 and 1:00 am. The claimant argued that the installed video surveillance in a park is not necessary to prevent a.o. drug-related crimes. Moreover, the surveillance should not only be turned off entirely on market days, but also during other events which he would like to initiate. 1. Article 79 GDPR precludes further judicial remedies against controllers and processors, so that a general action for performance in the form of an action for an injunction pursuant to §§ 1004 (1) and 823 (2) of the German Civil Code is not permissible within the scope of the GDPR. 2. A distinction must be made between data processing that is (merely) contrary to the Regulation and a possible infringement of a person's rights with regard to the personal data relating exclusively to that person. 3. In the case of a mere unlawful data processing without any infringement of rights, the data subject has the right of appeal under Article 77(1) GDPR and subsequently the right of judicial remedy against the supervisory authority under Article 78(
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case RN 9 K 19.1061 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case RN 9 K 19.1061 - Germany (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: