IP - 07121-1/2021/597: Difference between revisions
From GDPRhub
(Created page with "{{DPAdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Slovenia |DPA-BG-Color= |DPAlogo=LogoSI.png |DPA_Abbrevation=IP |DPA_With_Country=IP (Slovenia) |Case_Number_Name=07121-1/2021/597 |ECLI= |Or...") |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
|Type=Advisory Opinion | |Type=Advisory Opinion | ||
|Outcome= | |Outcome= | ||
|Date_Decided= | |Date_Decided=26.03.2021 | ||
|Date_Published= | |Date_Published= | ||
|Year= | |Year=2021 | ||
|Fine=None | |Fine=None | ||
|Currency= | |Currency= | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
}} | }} | ||
The Slovenian DPA stated that video surveillance performed by an individual from his private facility or from his private property to the neighbor falls under the exception of "personal use". Therefore, the DPA has no jurisdiction under the GDPR. | |||
== English Summary == | ==English Summary== | ||
=== Facts === | ===Facts=== | ||
The client stated that his neighbor had installed security cameras around his facility so that in addition to his facility and surrounding area, they were surveilling most of the client's yard as well as the property behind his facility, which is also owned by the client. The cameras were installed by the neighbor without the client's consent and the neighbor did not inform the client that the party's property was also being monitored. | The client stated that his neighbor had installed security cameras around his facility so that in addition to his facility and surrounding area, they were surveilling most of the client's yard as well as the property behind his facility, which is also owned by the client. The cameras were installed by the neighbor without the client's consent and the neighbor did not inform the client that the party's property was also being monitored. | ||
=== Dispute === | ===Dispute=== | ||
=== Holding === | ===Holding=== | ||
Video surveillance performed by an individual from his private facility or from his private property is thus generally considered as the processing of personal data for personal / domestic activity, except in the case when it also records public areas or space that is not owned by the individual who performs video surveillance. | Video surveillance performed by an individual from his private facility or from his private property is thus generally considered as the processing of personal data for personal / domestic activity, except in the case when it also records public areas or space that is not owned by the individual who performs video surveillance. | ||
== Comment == | ==Comment== | ||
''Share your comments here!'' | ''Share your comments here!'' | ||
== Further Resources == | ==Further Resources== | ||
''Share blogs or news articles here!'' | ''Share blogs or news articles here!'' | ||
== English Machine Translation of the Decision == | ==English Machine Translation of the Decision== | ||
The decision below is a machine translation of the Slovenian original. Please refer to the Slovenian original for more details. | The decision below is a machine translation of the Slovenian original. Please refer to the Slovenian original for more details. | ||
Latest revision as of 16:58, 13 April 2021
| IP - 07121-1/2021/597 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Authority: | IP (Slovenia) |
| Jurisdiction: | Slovenia |
| Relevant Law: | Article 2(2) GDPR |
| Type: | Advisory Opinion |
| Outcome: | n/a |
| Started: | |
| Decided: | 26.03.2021 |
| Published: | |
| Fine: | None |
| Parties: | n/a |
| National Case Number/Name: | 07121-1/2021/597 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | n/a |
| Appeal: | n/a |
| Original Language(s): | Slovenian |
| Original Source: | IP (in SL) |
| Initial Contributor: | GDPR plus |
The Slovenian DPA stated that video surveillance performed by an individual from his private facility or from his private property to the neighbor falls under the exception of "personal use". Therefore, the DPA has no jurisdiction under the GDPR.
English Summary
Facts
The client stated that his neighbor had installed security cameras around his facility so that in addition to his facility and surrounding area, they were surveilling most of the client's yard as well as the property behind his facility, which is also owned by the client. The cameras were installed by the neighbor without the client's consent and the neighbor did not inform the client that the party's property was also being monitored.
Dispute
Holding
Video surveillance performed by an individual from his private facility or from his private property is thus generally considered as the processing of personal data for personal / domestic activity, except in the case when it also records public areas or space that is not owned by the individual who performs video surveillance.
Comment
Share your comments here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the Slovenian original. Please refer to the Slovenian original for more details.
The Information Commissioner (hereinafter IP) has received your question by e-mail. You state that your neighbor has installed security cameras around his facility so that in addition to his facility and surroundings, they also record most of your yard, and the plot behind his facility, which is also owned by you. The cameras were set up by a neighbor without your consent and he did not inform you that your property will also be monitored, so you are wondering what you can do in such a case. *** On the basis of the information you have provided to us, hereinafter referred to as Article 58 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data Directive 95/46 / EC (hereinafter: the General Regulation), point 7 of the first paragraph of Article 49 of the Personal Data Protection Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 94/07, official consolidated text, hereinafter ZVOP-1) and 2 Article of the Information Commissioner Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 113/05, hereinafter ZInfP), we provide our non-binding opinion regarding your question. The IP emphasizes that the IP cannot assess specific processing of personal data outside the inspection procedure or other administrative procedure. As part of a non-binding opinion, we can only give you general explanations and recommendations. As regards the performance of video surveillance by an individual, it should be clarified at the outset that, in accordance with Article 2 (2) of the General Regulation, the General Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person during a purely personal or domestic activity. Video surveillance performed by an individual from his private facility or from his private property is thus generally considered as the processing of personal data for personal or. domestic activity, except in the case when it also records public areas or space that is not owned by the individual who performs video surveillance. In addition, it should be noted that the IP could only initiate an inspection procedure if there was concrete evidence that an individual was actually recording areas that he did not own (the evidence would be, for example, a screenshot of the camera). In the case of a completely personal or. domestic activity, the video surveillance provider does not have to fulfill the obligations imposed by the General Regulation and ZVOP-1, such as the publication of a video surveillance notice. If the camera also records the land of other persons, their consent must be obtained. In the event that the video surveillance provider does not obtain consent, it would not be a violation of personal data protection, but a violation of the right to privacy or personal rights, which is guaranteed by Article 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. Even if video surveillance does not constitute a violation of the regulations in the field of personal data protection, the individual can exercise his rights before the competent court. In this case, it may be an interference with the right to privacy in a broader sense from Article 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, which falls within the jurisdiction of courts and is protected by civil and criminal law institutes, and may result in criminal and tort liability. For example, in accordance with Article 134 of the Code of Obligations (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 97/07 - official consolidated text, 64/16 - US decision and 20/18 - OROZ631, OZ), an individual may sue the court to only this orders the cessation of conduct (eg video surveillance), and it can also claim compensation on the basis of Article 179 of the Civil Code, if it has caused damage. Implementation of video surveillance in the circumstances referred to in Article 138 of the Criminal Code (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 50/12 - official consolidated text, 6/16 - amended, 54/15, 38/16, 27/17, 23/20 and 91 / 20, KZ-1) may constitute a criminal offense of unjustified video recording, which is prosecuted on a proposal that must be made at the competent police station.
