HDPA (Greece) - 4/15-12-2022: Difference between revisions
(Facts and Holding) |
Inder-kahlon (talk | contribs) m (Undo revision 34123 by Inder-kahlon (talk)) Tag: Undo |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|ECLI= | |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= | |Original_Source_Language__Code_1= | ||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
}} | }} | ||
The Greek DPA | 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 == | == English Summary == | ||
=== Facts === | === 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 | 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 | 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 | 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. | 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 === | === Holding === | ||
The Greek DPA found that, following the meeting | 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. | ||
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 == | == Comment == | ||
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.
