Court case 9267/2022 – Court Ruling (Slovenia, 2023)

Following a criminal offence, the data subject was identified by the police through video surveillance cameras. The footage of the cameras was used as evidence during the criminal trial, on the basis of which the Court of First Instance convicted the data subject. In his appeal to the Ljubljana Higher, the data subject claimed, among other things, that the footage of the video surveillance cameras, as well as all other evidence obtained based on the footage, should be excluded since the cameras lacked an information notice. The Ljubljana Higher Court noted that the Court of First Instance, in accordance with case-law, explained the meaning of the right to privacy and the concept of expectation of privacy in criminal law. It pointed out that the right to privacy is not absolute, as it can be limited, for example, by the rights of others and in situations provided for by the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. Furthermore, the Higher Court explained that for the admissibility of evidence in criminal cases when such evidence was obtained in breach of the right to privacy, the standard of expected privacy should be taken into account. The Court cited the [https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22appno%22:[%2263737/00%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-61228%22]} Perry case], where the ECtHR took the view that the normal use of video surveillance cameras in places such as streets, shopping centers or police stations does not in itself raise concerns about the right to respect for private life under [https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG Article 8(1) ECHR]. Likewise, in the present instance, the Higher Court noted that the cameras were recording streets, courtyards or the vicinity of commercial buildings and the area in front of an ATM, where an individual could not expect privacy in the absolute sense. Thus, the recordings did not disproportionately interfere with the defendant's right to privacy. The Higher Court further found that the Co