TK – CJEU Judgment (Romania, 2019)

The data subject owns and lives in a flat. The building in which the flat is situated belongs to the controller (a co-owner association). After a request of co-owners of the building the controller decided to install video cameras on the premises. The data subject objected to the video cameras being installed and he claimed it constituted an infringement of the right to respect for private life. The data subject sued the controller requesting the court ordering the controller to remove the cameras. The data subject argued that the video surveillance system installed by the controller infringed his right to respect for private life both under EU and national law. The controller stated that the video cameras were installed in order to monitor who is entering the building because there had been vandalism, thefts and burglaries, and that other measures previously taken had not been effective. The Romanian court stayed the proceedings and referred the following questions to the CJEU: (1) Are Articles 8 and 52 of the Charter and Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46 to be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law such as those at issue in the main proceedings, namely Article 5(2) of [Law No 677/2001], and Article 6 of [Decision No 52/2012 of the ANSPDCP], in accordance with which video surveillance may be used to ensure the safety and protection of individuals, property and valuables and for the pursuit of legitimate interests, without the data subject’s consent? (2) Are Articles 8 and 52 of the Charter to be interpreted as meaning that the limitation of rights and freedoms which results from video surveillance is in accordance with the principle of proportionality, satisfies the requirement of being ‘necessary’ and ‘meets objectives of general interest or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others’, where the controller is able to take other measures to protect the legitimate interest in question? (3) Is Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46 to b