Court case Us I-2208/2024-6 – Court Ruling (Croatia, 2025)

Court Ruling
DPA USZagreb18 April 2025Croatia
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 Croatian kebab shop challenged a fine for not properly notifying customers about its CCTV cameras. This ruling matters because it shows that businesses must clearly inform people when they are being recorded. Other businesses should ensure their signage is visible to avoid similar issues.

What happened

The kebab shop used CCTV without providing adequate signage to inform customers about the recording.

Who was affected

Customers visiting the kebab shop and its outdoor terrace.

What the authority found

The court found that the shop did not provide sufficient notice about the CCTV, violating GDPR requirements.

Why this matters

This case highlights the need for clear communication about surveillance practices. Businesses should ensure that their signage is visible and informative to comply with data protection regulations.

GDPR Articles Cited

AI-verified

Art. 13(GDPR)
Art. 58(2)(a) GDPR
View original scraped data
Art. 13(GDPR)
Art. 58(2)(a) GDPR

Original data from scraper before AI verification against source document.

Decision AuthorityUS Zagreb
Source verified 21 March 2026
articles corrected
national law identified
amount discrepancy
authority corrected
Full Legal Summary
Detailed

A controller brought an action before the Administrative Court of Zagreb seeking annulment of a decision made by the Agencija za zaštitu osobnih podataka (Croatian DPA) where they were fined €2,500. The contested decision had found that controller had infringed Article 13 GDPR by using CCTV in and outside of their premises, a kebab shop, with signage only being visible upon entering the store. It was also found that an outdoor terrace had no signage at all. The controller argued that the fine amount was excessive and requests annulment of the decision and its adoption without the fine. The controller further agued that in relation to the outdoor terrace, this area is only accessible through the shopping centre where there are existing signs highlighting that CCTV is in operation. The controller contended that a warning under Article 58(2)(1) GDPR in lieu of a fine would have been more appropriate in the circumstance. The DPA argued that the decision was taking lawfully and based on a correct application of the law. The DPA noted that the small notices were not visible to data subjects before entering the recording perimeter and the notice published on the controller’s website was insufficient and did not include the contact details of the controller. The DPA further submitted that they were obliged to impose and administrative fine in the circumstances as a more lenient sanction in this case was not provided for under the law. The Court firstly highlighted an inconsistency in the contested decision. The DPA had at one point highlighted the existence of CCTV in the outdoor terrace, but further on in the decision, failed to include this area in the list of areas covered by CCTV. The Court further noted that although the decision found an infringement of Article 13 GDPR on the part of the controller, there were no reasons for this provided in the decision. The Court was further critical of the lack of clarity in the DPA’s decision as to the existence or the absence o

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case Us I-2208/2024-6 in HR

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

Details

Ruling Date

18 April 2025

Authority

DPA USZagreb

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 Us I-2208/2024-6 - Croatia (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: