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

Court case 10 A 10302/21 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2021)

Court Ruling
DPA VGMainz25 June 2021Germany
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 that a camera set up by a business to monitor a parking lot could not be dismantled because it was not processing data anymore. This matters because it clarifies the rules about when data protection laws apply. It shows that deactivated equipment does not fall under GDPR regulations.

What happened

The court decided that a deactivated camera did not process data, so it did not need to be dismantled.

Who was affected

The business operating the LED billboard and the camera were involved in this case.

What the authority found

The court held that the GDPR did not apply to the switched-off camera, and the order to dismantle it was unlawful.

Why this matters

This case highlights the limits of GDPR regarding inactive equipment. Businesses should understand when data protection laws apply to their devices.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 4(2) GDPR
Art. 58(2)(f) GDPR
Art. 58(6) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 4(2) GDPR
Art. 58(2)(f) GDPR
Art. 58(6) GDPR

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

National Law Articles
AI-identified
§ 38(5)(2) BDSG a.F.
Decision AuthorityOVG Rheinland-Pfalz
Reviewed AuthorityVG Mainz (Germany)

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Automated check recorded — 20 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, authority corrected.

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 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

Ruling Date

25 June 2021

Authority

DPA VGMainz

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 10 A 10302/21 - Germany (2021). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: