Court case 18 SLa 959/24 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2025)

Court Ruling
DPA LGDortmund28 May 2025Germany
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.

The controller is a company that is active in metal processing. Its factory building consists of a production hall where steel is processed, a break room, two offices, and an adjoining storage room. There are 34 video cameras in those spaces which cover the entire area 24 hours a day and the video footage is kept for at least 48 hours. Cameras are also positioned in the offices. However, the parties disagree on whether the cameras in the offices are merely "dummy" devices. The cameras are capable of filming in high resolution. Images from the video feeds can be evaluated “live” while they are being recorded. Information signs regarding video surveillance are located at every access door. Employees consent to video surveillance through a short, general clause in their employment contract. The data subject was an employee working with machinery in the production hall who's workplace was located a few metres away from a surveillance camera. The camera surveillance was the subject of a legal dispute between the controller and the data subject before the Labour Court Dortmund in 2023. The dispute was resolved through a settlement agreement. As part of the settlement, the controller agreed to provide the data subject with information about the video surveillance. However, after receiving this information, the data subject claimed that it was incorrect and insufficient and that the stated purposes of the video surveillance did not justify its extent. In 2024, the data subject pursued his claims with his lawsuit, which was filed with the court of first instance (Labour Court Dortmund). He demanded that the controller would provide the correct information and cease video surveillance. In its decision of 2024, the court of first instance dismissed the right of access claim and upheld the rest of the claim ordering the controller to pay the data subject €15,000 in compensation for a serious unlawful infringement of the data subject's personal rights. In the meantime the e

GDPR Articles Cited

Art. 6 GDPR
Art. 7 GDPR

National Law Articles

§ 26 BDSG
§ 4 BDSG
Decision AuthorityLAG Hamm
Reviewed AuthorityLG Dortmund
Full Legal Summary

The controller is a company that is active in metal processing. Its factory building consists of a production hall where steel is processed, a break room, two offices, and an adjoining storage room. There are 34 video cameras in those spaces which cover the entire area 24 hours a day and the video footage is kept for at least 48 hours. Cameras are also positioned in the offices. However, the parties disagree on whether the cameras in the offices are merely "dummy" devices. The cameras are capable of filming in high resolution. Images from the video feeds can be evaluated “live” while they are being recorded. Information signs regarding video surveillance are located at every access door. Employees consent to video surveillance through a short, general clause in their employment contract. The data subject was an employee working with machinery in the production hall who's workplace was located a few metres away from a surveillance camera. The camera surveillance was the subject of a legal dispute between the controller and the data subject before the Labour Court Dortmund in 2023. The dispute was resolved through a settlement agreement. As part of the settlement, the controller agreed to provide the data subject with information about the video surveillance. However, after receiving this information, the data subject claimed that it was incorrect and insufficient and that the stated purposes of the video surveillance did not justify its extent. In 2024, the data subject pursued his claims with his lawsuit, which was filed with the court of first instance (Labour Court Dortmund). He demanded that the controller would provide the correct information and cease video surveillance. In its decision of 2024, the court of first instance dismissed the right of access claim and upheld the rest of the claim ordering the controller to pay the data subject €15,000 in compensation for a serious unlawful infringement of the data subject's personal rights. In the meantime the e

Outcome

Court Ruling

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

Related Cases (0)

No other cases found for Court case 18 SLa 959/24 in DE

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

Details

Ruling Date

28 May 2025

Authority

DPA LGDortmund

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 18 SLa 959/24 - Germany (2025). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu

Report Inaccuracy

Last updated: