HDPA (Greece) - 4/15-12-2022: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 08:18, 19 July 2023

HDPA - 4/15-12-2022

Authority:	HDPA (Greece)
Jurisdiction:	Greece
Relevant Law:	Article 5 GDPR Article 6 GDPR Article 7 of European Charter of Fundamental Rights Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 of European Charter of Fundamental Rights Article 9 of Greek Constitution Article 9A of Greek Constitution
Type:	Complaint
Outcome:	Upheld
Started:	08.06.2022
Decided:	15.12.2022
Published:	15.12.2022
Fine:	n/a
Parties:	n/a
National Case Number/Name:	4/15-12-2022
European Case Law Identifier:	n/a
Appeal:	n/a
Original Language(s):	Greek
Original Source:	Greek DPA (in )
Initial Contributor:	Anastasia Tsermenidou

The Greek DPA determined that the processing of personal data using a video surveillance camera in an apartment building was unlawful, after the general assembly of owners requested the removal of the device.

English Summary

Facts

This case concerns a complaint filed by an individual (the data subject), against another person living in the same block of apartments (the controller). The controller had installed a video surveillance system in the communal area of an apartment building, for the purpose of monitoring and protecting their car.

At a general assembly meeting on 12 June 2017, all of the co-owners in the apartment block had consented to the installation of the cameras and declared that they wished to have access to the system. Following complaints that such access was not afforded, another meeting was held on 21 June 2022 where it was decided that the camera would be removed.

Subsequently, the data subject filed a complaint with the Greek DPA, alleging that the processing of personal data through the surveillance camera, which captured the other residents moving throughout the building, in the absence of collective consent from the co-owners, was unlawful.

Responding to the complaint, the controller stated that the other owners had consented to the installation, and had not been denied access to the surveillance system, but access to the camera required some technical support, the cost of which the controller asked the other co-owners to bear.

Holding

The Greek DPA found that, following the second meeting and decision of the general assembly, the co-owners withdrew their consent for the continued operation of the surveillance camera and requested its immediate removal. Therefore, it is clear that the continued processing of personal data was unlawful in accordance with Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. The DPA also noted that none of the other lawful bases in Article 6(1) GDPR could apply in this situation. The DPA issued a compliance order for the above violation ordering the controller to, within 15 days of receipt of the decision, stop processing through the surveillance camera and inform the authority of the above actions.

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 original. Please refer to the original for more details.

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 |ECLI=
-|Original_Source_Name_1=
+|Original_Source_Name_1=Greek DPA
-|Original_Source_Link_1=
+|Original_Source_Link_1=https://www.dpa.gr/sites/default/files/2023-01/4_2022_monoprosopo%20anonym.pdf
-|Original_Source_Language_1=
+|Original_Source_Language_1=Greek
 |Original_Source_Language__Code_1=
@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 }}
-The Authority investigated the installation of a video surveillance system in an apartment building. The  maintained installed video surveillance system in violation of the decision of the General Assembly of the owners.
+The Greek DPA determined that the processing of personal data using a video surveillance camera in an apartment building was unlawful, after the general assembly of owners requested the removal of the device.
 == English Summary ==
 === Facts ===
-The Greek DPA investigated a complaint concerning the installation of a video surveillance system in the pilot house of an apartment building. The Greek DPA found that the complainants maintained the installed video surveillance system in violation of the decision of the General Assembly of the owners and issued a compliance order for the above violation. The system installation video surveillance system in residential complexes for the security of common areas and the persons walking in them may be carried out only by decision of the body responsible for management of the complex (e.g. the general assembly of the block of flats). The person responsible for the processing of the video surveillance system is the association of persons of the co-owners acting through the general assembly. Therefore, in cases where a video surveillance system is installed by in a common area, such as the pilotage of a block of flats, where it cannot be used by the other tenants can be excluded, the use of the system should be excessively infringes the rights of persons moving around the premises, as it is likely that activities closely related to the area are being monitored closely linked to their private lives.
+This case concerns a complaint filed by an individual (the data subject), against another person living in the same block of apartments (the controller). The controller had installed a video surveillance system in the communal area of an apartment building, for the purpose of monitoring and protecting their car.
+At a general assembly meeting on 12 June 2017, all of the co-owners in the apartment block had consented to the installation of the cameras and declared that they wished to have access to the system. Following complaints that such access was not afforded, another meeting was held on 21 June 2022 where it was decided that the camera would be removed.
+Subsequently, the data subject filed a complaint with the Greek DPA, alleging that the processing of personal data through the surveillance camera, which captured the other residents moving throughout the building, in the absence of collective consent from the co-owners, was unlawful.
+Responding to the complaint, the controller stated that the other owners had consented to the installation, and had not been denied access to the surveillance system, but access to the camera required some technical support, the cost of which the controller asked the other co-owners to bear.
 === Holding ===
-The Greek DPA ordered the complainants to stop processing through the camera that oversees the pilotin and also ordered them to inform the Greek DPA about the realization of the above actions.
+The Greek DPA found that, following the second meeting and decision of the general assembly, the co-owners withdrew their consent for the continued operation of the surveillance camera and requested its immediate removal. Therefore, it is clear that the continued processing of personal data was unlawful in accordance with Article 6(1)(a) GDPR. The DPA also noted that none of the other lawful bases in Article 6(1) GDPR could apply in this situation. The DPA issued a compliance order for the above violation ordering the controller to, within 15 days of receipt of the decision, stop processing through the surveillance camera and inform the authority of the above actions.
 == Comment ==