Court case 5 BV 20.2104 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2023)

Court Ruling
DPA VGHMnchen30 May 2023Germany
final
Court Ruling

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 court in Munich ruled that the city of Regensburg could use surveillance cameras in a public garden to prevent vandalism. The court decided this was allowed under GDPR since it served the public interest. This case shows that public safety can justify some surveillance under data protection laws.

What happened

The city of Regensburg installed surveillance cameras in a public garden to prevent vandalism.

Who was affected

People who frequent the public garden, including migrants and marginalized groups.

What the authority found

The court ruled that the surveillance was lawful under GDPR as it served a public interest in protecting property.

Why this matters

This decision clarifies that municipalities can use surveillance for public interest purposes under GDPR. It emphasizes the balance between privacy rights and public safety needs.

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 2(2)(d) GDPR
Art. 6(1)(e) GDPR
Decision AuthorityVGH München
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

Following several episodes of vandalism, the city council of Regensburg installed surveillance cameras in a communal garden where migrants and marginalised groups of people usually spent their time. The data subject, who usually passed through that area, asked the Administrative Court of Regensburg to order the police to stop recording and remove the cameras. The court of first instance held that the case at issue did not fall within the scope of Directive (EU) 2016/680 (Law Enforcement Directive), but rather of the GDPR. Indeed, the exception under Article 2(2)(d) GDPR did not apply, since the controller was not a law enforcement agency acting with the aim to protect public security. The court also found that the data subject could not rely on injunctive relief against the unlawful processing pursuant to the German Civil Code. According to the judges, Article 79(1) GDPR provides data subject with a legal remedy that is only applicable to violations of Articles 13-23 GDPR individually affecting the data subject. Finally, the court found that the monitoring was in any case lawful, as it was based on a public interest pursuant to Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, namely the protection of public property from vandalism. The data subject appealed the judgement before the Superior Administrative Court of Munich (Verwaltungsgerichtshof München). At the outset, the court clarified that the protection of public property by a municipality does not trigger Article 2(2)(d) GDPR, as it cannot be considered an activity carried out in the context of the fight against crime. Therefore, the GDPR – and not the Law Enforcement Directive – was applicable. The fact that such a purpose could partially overlap with the prevention of crime was not deemed sufficient by the court to rule out the applicability of the GDPR. However, the court of appeal stressed that Article 79 GDPR does not explicitly limit judicial remedies to the rights enshrined in Chapter III of the regulation. Therefore, an inj

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 5 BV 20.2104 in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

30 May 2023

Authority

DPA VGHMnchen

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 5 BV 20.2104 - Germany (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: