Enforcing jurisdiction
Croatia · Geography does not establish applicable law.
Confirmed applicable legislation
No confirmed legal basis recorded.
Privacy topics

Court case Usl-4017/23-6 – Court Ruling (Croatia, 2024)

Court Ruling
DPA USZagreb5 February 2024Croatia
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 Croatian court dealt with a case where a person complained about being filmed in their yard without permission. The court confirmed that the recordings should have been deleted and that the company had no legal right to film. This case highlights the importance of respecting individuals' privacy in their own spaces.

What happened

The court upheld a decision that prohibited a company from recording a person's yard without a valid legal basis.

Who was affected

The individual whose yard was filmed without consent was directly affected.

What the authority found

The court ruled that the company had no valid legal basis for the recordings and must comply with the initial order to delete them.

Why this matters

This case reinforces the idea that companies must respect personal privacy and obtain proper consent before recording individuals in private spaces.

Recorded legal citations
Automatically processed
Art. 57(1)(a) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 57(1)(a) GDPR

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

National Law Articles
AI-identified
Zakon o općem upravnom postupku (Croatian Act on General Administrative Procedure)
Art. 35, Zakon o provedbi Opće uredbe o zaštiti podataka (National Law Implementing the GDPR)
Decision AuthorityUS Zagreb (Croatia)

Source checks

Linked-source text retrieved.

Review needed — 22 March 2026.

Processing notes: articles corrected, national law identified, amount discrepancy, 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 data subject lodged a complaint with the Croatian DPA (“AZOP”) after their yard was filmed by a controller. The AZOP considered that this processing operation had no valid legal basis. On 3 October 2018, it ordered the deletion of every recording of the yard or public road and prohibited the controller from recording the yard in question. The decision indicated that “No appeal is allowed against this decision”. In accordance with Article 133(2) of the Croatian Act on General Administrative Procedure, the decision became enforceable by delivery of the decision to the party. The controller did not act on the decision. The data subjects thus submitted a request to the AZOP to adopt an enforcement decision. Meanwhile, the controller initiated an administrative dispute against the initial decision taken by the AZOP. The AZOP responded to the data subjects that the conditions for execution of the decision were not met because that decision faced an ongoing procedure before an Administrative Court. Following the conclusion of the administrative dispute, the data subjects asked the AZOP to adopt a decision on the enforcement of the decision. The AZOP did not take any action. The data subjects submitted a complaint with the Administrative Court of Zaghreb against the AZOP. The AZOP stated that it did not take any action because the controller indicated that the recordings were deleted and the data subjects did not prove the contrary. It made two arguments pursuant to the [https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2009_04_47_1065.html Croatian Act on General Administrative Procedure]. First, it noted that Article [https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2009_04_47_1065.html 139(1) of this Act] establishes an obligation to issue a decision when the executed party does not act according the enforcement decision. Second, the AZOP argued that the decision cannot be enforced because the statute of limitations period granting 5 years to bring an enforcement action un

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case Usl-4017/23-6 in HR

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

Details

Ruling Date

5 February 2024

Authority

DPA USZagreb

About this data

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

Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case Usl-4017/23-6 - Croatia (2024). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: