Video surveillance is a constant concern for data protection officers. In retail, customers can be particularly affect by surveillance, while in production facilities or logistics centers, employees can be affect. However, data protection regulations must also be observwhen private individuals operate video surveillance on their own property evidence in a traffic accident.
The Geilenkirchen District Court dealt with such a case in a judgment dated January 5, 2023 (case no. 10 C 114/21). The conclusion of the judgment: Permanent, unprovoked video surveillance of public spaces by private individuals (cameras on buildings) is inadmissible, and the use of such evidence is prohibited.
What had happened? evidence in a traffic accident
The plaintiff in the lawsuit claim that the defendant had damag the italy business fax list plaintiff’s park vehicle while driving past with a truck. She was seeking damages for a traffic accident. As evidence, the plaintiff submitt, among other things, video footage from a camera attach to her house. This camera apparently film not only the plaintiff’s property, but also the street where her vehicle was park and which was damag.
Data protection assessment
Such surveillance beyond one’s own property boundary is generally considered inadmissible. The DSK, a body of independent German data protection supervisory authorities, states in a guidance note :
“In residential areas, private individuals are not permitted to monitor public spaces. The right to observe ends at the boundary of one’s own property. If surveillance extends beyond this boundary, Let’s take a look at today’s Dragon and Tiger List the person conducting the surveillance cannot invoke their right of occupancy. Even a specific interest in surveillance does not generally justify video surveillance of publicly accessible spaces such as streets, sidewalks, or parking lots.
Neighbors, passersby, children, delivery workers, visitors, and other road users do not have to accept permanent and possibly random surveillance in residential areas. In these areas, the legitimate interests of those affected generally prevail.” (Section 5.2 Neighborhood Surveillance, p. 30)
The verdict
The ruling contains two interesting statements: First, it considers video surveillance to be inadmissible. This corresponds to the DSK’s view outlined above. Second, it denies the usability of the video recordings as evidence. This may sound logical to laypeople. However, German law does not automatically preclude the use of illegally obtained evidence. Rather, the court must always decide on the usability of such evidence on a case-by-case basis. Thus, in theory, marketing list there may be video recordings creat in violation of data protection regulations that can still be us as evidence in civil proceedings. We recently report on a case of time fraud that was proven using video recordings that the employer should have delet long ago, and which to the immediate dismissal of the employees involv.
The present judgment of the Geilenkirchen District Court states the following regarding the admissibility of the video as evidence:
“The video recorded by the plaintiff is not admissible as evidence. It is a recording subject to the provisions of the Federal Data Protection Act. The recording by the video camera installed at the plaintiff’s property constitutes a permanent, unprovoked recording of the entire event, which is not necessary to protect the plaintiff’s interests and is therefore inadmissible under Section 4 (1) of the Federal Data Protection Act.”
