Enforcing jurisdiction
Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation
Privacy topics

Court case RN 9 K 19.1061 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2020)

Court Ruling
DPA VGRegensburg6 August 2020Germany
final
Court Ruling

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.

A court ruled on a case regarding video surveillance in a public park, stating that the city council's actions were not justified. This matters because it highlights the balance between safety and privacy in public spaces. It reminds local governments to consider privacy rights when implementing surveillance.

What happened

The court addressed a request to stop the city from conducting video surveillance in a public park.

Who was affected

Residents and visitors to the park who were concerned about being monitored.

What the authority found

The court found that the surveillance was not necessary for preventing crime and did not meet legal requirements.

Why this matters

This case emphasizes the need for public authorities to carefully evaluate the necessity of surveillance measures. Local governments should ensure that privacy rights are respected when planning such initiatives.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 2 GDPR
Art. 12 GDPR
Art. 21 GDPR
Art. 77(1) GDPR
Art. 78(1) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 2(GDPR)
Art. 12(GDPR)
Art. 21(GDPR)
Art. 77(1) GDPR
Art. 78(1) GDPR

Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.

National Law Articles
AI-identified
Article 2, 20, 24 Bavarian Data protection Act (Bayrisches Datenschutzgesetz - BayDSG)
§ 823 (2) German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch - BGB)
§ 1004 (1) German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch - BGB)
Decision AuthorityVG Regensburg

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 20 March 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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

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

Ruling Date

6 August 2020

Authority

DPA VGRegensburg

About this data

Data: GDPRhub (noyb.eu)
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Automatically normalized and classified

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case RN 9 K 19.1061 - Germany (2020). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: