Court case 22-3460 – Court Ruling (Netherlands, 2025)
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 Dutch court ruled that a livestream showing a village violated privacy rules because it filmed private homes without consent. The court found that the individual running the livestream did not have a valid reason to process personal data. This case highlights the importance of getting permission before sharing videos that may show people's private properties.
What happened
A livestream of a village was broadcasted without proper consent from residents whose homes were filmed.
Who was affected
Residents of the village whose private homes were visible in the livestream.
What the authority found
The court decided that the individual lacked a valid legal basis for processing personal data, violating privacy rules.
Why this matters
This ruling emphasizes that even personal projects must respect privacy rights. Individuals and small businesses should ensure they have consent when sharing videos that may include others' private spaces.
GDPR Articles Cited
View original scraped data
Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.
An individual, the controller, broadcasted a live stream with a video footage, installed on their initiative, of their village on their website. This livestream was taken with two cameras and broadcasted on the controller´s website. Multiple data subjects advanced complaints before the DPA due to the filming of private houses in the controller´s livestream. Consequently, the DPA started an investigation and, eventually, imposed a fine of €500 to the controller due to the lack of a legal basis for the processing as per Article 5(1)(a) and 6 GDPR. The DPA upheld the decision after the controller´s objection. Thus, the controller appealed the decision in front of the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland (hereinafter: District Court) and argued that the processing activity could be based on an legitimate interest in accordance with Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. The District Court admitted the appeal to the DPA decision. Data processing under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR The District Court started its analysis by stating that it is undisputed that personal data was processed. The controller claimed that the processing was based on a legitimate interest as per Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. The controller listed different legitimate interests at stake in the case at hand: - The controller ´s own interest to promote the old village, national monuments and iconic buildings; - Different local authorities´ interest to attract tourists for economic gains, - The interest of the Municipality of De Fryske Marren as the municipality´s bridge operator uses the live stream when operating bridges; - The neighborhood police officer´s interest in using the live stream to determine the duty rooster; - The social interest of sick, elderly and interested people at home to watch the activity in the centre from home. To support this claim, the controller brought a petition of 941 people asking to keep the live streaming going. - Third parties´ interest to maintain public order and safety through the processing. On
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 22-3460 in NL
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 22-3460 - Netherlands (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: