- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Belgium · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- No confirmed legal basis recorded.
- Privacy topics
Belgian DPA (Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit) – Court Ruling (Belgium, 2019)
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 dismissed a case involving a neighbor who recorded videos of smoke from another neighbor's home. The court found that the videos were removed before any decision was made. This case raises questions about privacy and conflict resolution between neighbors.
What happened
A neighbor recorded and posted videos of smoke from another neighbor's home.
Who was affected
The neighbor who recorded the videos and the neighbor who was filmed.
What the authority found
The court ruled that the videos were removed and did not impose any penalties.
Why this matters
This case highlights the challenges of balancing privacy and neighborly disputes. It serves as a reminder for individuals to consider privacy implications when sharing content online.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 21 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 started as a conflict between neighbours. The controller (Y) and the data subject (X) are/were inhabitants of the same neighbourhood. The controller experienced nuisance (soot gas infiltration) because the data subject had amended his home to prevent the backlash of wood smoke. The controller repeatedly emailed the data subject about this, but the data subject did not change his behaviour. Between 22 November 2017 and 15 December 2018, the controller made three video recordings of the wood smoke, and uploaded these videos on YouTube. He also sent the videos to the data subject “to confront him with the intrusions he had caused on the private lives of his neighbours”. On 11/01/2019, the data subject then requested the controller to remove the videos, which Y did not do. On 15/01/2019, however, the controller saw that all of his videos were deleted from YouTube, and several requests of the Belgian DPA to remove certain video recordings. On 14/02/2019, the DPA warned the controller that they could sanction him for posting the videos, and issue high fines. The controller replied that he already removed three videos. However, on 18 April, he was notified that the DPA would investigate the case. However, before the DPA had even issued a legally binding decision, the controller lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal because he challenged the impartiality of the DPA. He claimed, inter alia, that the DPA had put him under pressure with threat of a (large) fine, without having been informed of any substantive complaint. First, the Court considered that the data subject had filed his complaint after he had been advised by staff of the DPA. Moreover, the Court criticised the fact that staff of the DPA can first advise data subjects regarding potential complaints, and later advise the DPA on these complaints in another capacity. However, it also mentioned that it “cannot anticipate and proactively impose on the [DPA] how it should handle administrative dispute
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Belgian DPA (Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit) in BE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Ruling Date
12 June 2019
Authority
DPA HofvanBeroepBrussel
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Belgian DPA (Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit) - Belgium (2019). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: