Court case 10 A 10302/21 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2021)
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 that a deactivated camera on a private car park did not fall under GDPR rules. The court decided that since the camera was off, it wasn't processing any data. This decision clarifies that GDPR applies only when data processing is actively happening.
What happened
The court ruled that a deactivated camera did not involve data processing under GDPR.
Who was affected
The case involved the operator of a private car park who had installed the camera.
What the authority found
The court held that a deactivated camera does not process data and therefore does not fall under GDPR's scope.
Why this matters
This case clarifies that GDPR only applies when data is actively being processed, which can help businesses understand when they need to comply with data protection rules.
GDPR Articles Cited
National Law Articles
The controller erected an LED billboard on a private car park. As there had been regular vandalism there in the past, the controller set up various cameras that operated around the clock and partially recorded the public traffic area. The DPA ordered, among other things, that the data processing by one of the cameras be stopped and that this camera be dismantled. The controller objected to this order. The court of first instance (VG Mainz - 1 K 584/19.MZ) ruled that the discontinuation order was lawful, but that the dismantling order was unlawful. The controller accepted this decision and, in particular, accepted that he would no longer be allowed to switch on the camera. In contrast, the defendant appealed against the annulment of the dismantling order. The appeal was unsuccessful. The Higher Administrative Court of Rhineland-Palatinate (OVG Rheinland-Pfalz) ruled that, firstly, the scope of application of the GDPR was not opened for the switched-off camera. Secondly, Article 58(2)(f) GDPR does not authorise the ordering of the dismantling of a (decommissioned) camera. = In the court's opinion, the scope of application of the GDPR is not opened. There was no processing within the meaning of Article 4(2) GDPR. Video recordings and their temporary storage are indisputably data processing, but a deactivated camera does not process data (any longer). In the second instance, the operator of the LED board no longer objected to the order of discontinuance. The order has become unappealable. In the absence of any indications of continued operation contrary to the order, the court held that it was to be assumed that the camera was and remained deactivated. = Pursuant to Art. 58(2)(f) GDPR, the supervisory authority has all corrective powers allowing it to impose a temporary or definitive limitation on processing, including a ban. The DPA made use of this power by ordering to deactivate the camera and therefore to stop the processing. Article 58(2)(f) GDPR does not est
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 10 A 10302/21 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 10 A 10302/21 - Germany (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: