- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Norway · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Redacted – Court Ruling (Norway, 2022)
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 Norwegian appeals board upheld a fine against a company for improperly installing surveillance cameras without informing employees. The board found that the lack of communication and signage about the surveillance was a serious violation of GDPR. This case emphasizes the need for transparency when implementing workplace surveillance.
What happened
A company was fined for installing surveillance cameras without discussing it with employees or providing proper signage.
Who was affected
Employees and customers affected by the surveillance in the workplace.
What the authority found
The appeals board agreed that the company's actions were a serious violation of GDPR due to inadequate communication about surveillance.
Why this matters
This ruling underscores the importance of transparency and employee consent in workplace surveillance practices. Companies should ensure compliance with data protection laws to avoid fines.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 18 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
This case is an appeal of the decision 20/01648 by the Norwegian DPA (Datatilsynet), in which it imposed a fine of NOK 100,000 (approx. €10,000). The defendant asked for the fine to be overturned or reduced significantly, due to the company's "critical financial state". The Privacy Appeals Board assessed if a fine could be imposed as per Article 83(5) GDPR, cf. Article 83(2) GDPR, and in which case, how large it should be. The Board agreed with the DPA that the installation of the camera was not discussed with the employees in advance, as claimed by the defendant, since there were no evidence of such discussions. The Board noted that continuously surveilling a workplace is very intrusive for the employees, and also for the customers since there were no proper signage or information about the surveillance, and finds this to be a serious violation of the GDPR. The Board agreed with the DPA in that the defendant's actions are serious and criticizable, deserving of a sanction and which justified the level of the fine. This was further substantiated by the lack of technical and organisational measures for GDPR compliance in the company.
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (1)
Other cases involving Redacted in NO
Details
Ruling Date
15 February 2022
Authority
Datatilsynet (Norway)
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Redacted - Norway (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: