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

Bayerisches Landesamt für Datenschutzaufsicht – Court Ruling (Germany, 2022)

Court Ruling
DPA VGAnsbach23 February 2022Germany
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 gym's video surveillance was not lawful and ordered it to stop using cameras in training areas. The gym argued it needed the cameras for safety, but the court found less invasive options were available. This decision shows that businesses must consider privacy when implementing security measures.

What happened

The Bavarian DPA ruled that the gym's video surveillance was unlawful and required it to stop using cameras.

Who was affected

Gym members and clients were affected by the gym's video surveillance practices.

What the authority found

The court decided that the gym did not meet the legal requirements for video surveillance under GDPR, as less intrusive alternatives were available.

Why this matters

This case sets a precedent that businesses must carefully assess the necessity of surveillance measures. Companies should explore less invasive security options to protect user privacy.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 6(1)(b) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 58(2)(f) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 6(1)(b) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR
Art. 58(2)(f) GDPR

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

Decision AuthorityVG Ansbach

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

Full Legal Summary
Detailed

The controller runs a gym. The defendant is the Bavarian DPA (BayLDA). The controller and the BayLDA were in dispute about the lawfulness of a video surveillance with six video cameras in the training rooms and the counter of the gym. The controller argued that the video surveillance served to prevent and solve thefts and damage to property, which had occurred several times in the past. In addition, the video surveillance served to prevent sexual harassment, as a continuous presence of the staff in all rooms could not be guaranteed. After a client of the controller requested the BayLDA to stop the video surveillance, the BayLDA issued a notice. It required the controller to refrain from observing the training areas with video cameras pursuant to Article 58(2)(f) GDPR. After that, the controller replaced the the video cameras with dummy cameras. The BayLDA argued that, while the legal basis for the video surveillance can generally be Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, the conditions were not met in the present case. In particular, the video surveillance was not not necessary as the controller could have considered less restrictive means such as increased staff and anti-theft devices. The controller argued that, due to the contractual relationship with the clients, it also had a secondary obligation to ensure their safety, in particular by preventing or solving thefts and assaults through video surveillance. In addition, the data subjects would be informed about the monitoring via signs and the general terms and conditions, thereby also consenting to the video recordings. The controller claimed that, after replacing the video cameras with dummy cameras, it could expect yearly damages in the amount of €10,000 to €15,000 since the clearance rate without the video camera was almost zero. The court held that the video surveillance was not lawful and that the BayLDA was entitled to require the controller to refrain from using video cameras in training areas pursuant to Article 58(2

Outcome

Court Ruling

A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Bayerisches Landesamt für Datenschutzaufsicht in DE

This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.

Details

Ruling Date

23 February 2022

Authority

DPA VGAnsbach

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Bayerisches Landesamt für Datenschutzaufsicht - Germany (2022). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: