AEPD (Spain) - PS/00427/2018: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Ar moved page AEPD - PS/00427/2018 to AEPD (Spain) - PS/00427/2018) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
|Party_Name_5= | |Party_Name_5= | ||
|Party_Link_5= | |Party_Link_5= | ||
}} | |||
The AEPD imposed a 1.500 € fine against a cafeteria which placed surveillance cameras outside its establishment on a public space and thus, violated the principle of data minimisation. | The AEPD imposed a 1.500 € fine against a cafeteria which placed surveillance cameras outside its establishment on a public space and thus, violated the principle of data minimisation. | ||
| Line 95: | Line 93: | ||
Following the complaint, the APED agreed to investigate the matter against the establishment – the data controller – for the alleged violation of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, the data minimisation principle, pursuant to Article 83(5)(a) GDPR. Thereafter, the AEPD proposed a fine of 1.500 euros against the data controller for a violation of the data minimisation principle. | Following the complaint, the APED agreed to investigate the matter against the establishment – the data controller – for the alleged violation of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, the data minimisation principle, pursuant to Article 83(5)(a) GDPR. Thereafter, the AEPD proposed a fine of 1.500 euros against the data controller for a violation of the data minimisation principle. | ||
The defendant argued that the surveillance cameras was placed outside its establishment for security reasons. In addition, it claimed that the surveillance system was set up to comply with a mandatory regularity provision. However, it | The defendant argued that the surveillance cameras was placed outside its establishment for security reasons. In addition, it claimed that the surveillance system was set up to comply with a mandatory regularity provision. However, the AEPD ruled it was not clear from the facts that the surveillance system implemented complies with the regulation in force given the distance of the cameras. Lastly, the defendant requested to dismiss the action on the basis of the violation of its right to defense and its presumption of innocence. | ||
===Dispute=== | ===Dispute=== | ||
| Line 103: | Line 101: | ||
First, the APED decided there were no violation of the right to presumption or innocence, neither of the right to a fair trial and that the procedure should continue. Indeed, it pointed out that the defendant had the opportunity to provide for evidence regarding the surveillance video system and it did not provide for any. | First, the APED decided there were no violation of the right to presumption or innocence, neither of the right to a fair trial and that the procedure should continue. Indeed, it pointed out that the defendant had the opportunity to provide for evidence regarding the surveillance video system and it did not provide for any. | ||
Also, the AEPD | Also, the AEPD ruled that the surveillance cameras affected the rights of any passengers taking the side walk which was recorded by the cameras. The authority pointed out that the processing of personal data in public spaces should be carried out only by the public forces. Otherwise, the recording of public spaces by private entities has to be essential for the purpose of surveillance that is intended, or it is impossible to avoid it because of the location of those. In any case, any processing of data which is unnecessary for the intended purpose must be avoided. It has been concluded that the defendant did not succeed to justified the use of surveillance cameras. | ||
Consequently, the APED decided to issue a fine of 1.500 € for the violation of the principle of data minimisation. | Consequently, the APED decided to issue a fine of 1.500 € for the violation of the principle of data minimisation. | ||
Latest revision as of 14:39, 13 December 2023
| AEPD - PS/00427/2018 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Authority: | AEPD (Spain) |
| Jurisdiction: | Spain |
| Relevant Law: | Article 5(1)(c) GDPR Article 83(5)(a) GDPR |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Upheld |
| Started: | |
| Decided: | n/a |
| Published: | 10. 2.2020 |
| Fine: | 1.500 € |
| Parties: | Anoymous Vs. cafetaria Nagasaki |
| National Case Number/Name: | PS/00427/2018 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | n/a |
| Appeal: | n/a |
| Original Language(s): | Spanish |
| Original Source: | AEPD (in es) |
| Initial Contributor: | n/a |
The AEPD imposed a 1.500 € fine against a cafeteria which placed surveillance cameras outside its establishment on a public space and thus, violated the principle of data minimisation.
English Summary
Facts
A citizen filed a complaint with the AEPD against the cafeteria Nagasaki for collecting, recording and storing personal data by the mean of surveillance cameras placed in a public space.
Following the complaint, the APED agreed to investigate the matter against the establishment – the data controller – for the alleged violation of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR, the data minimisation principle, pursuant to Article 83(5)(a) GDPR. Thereafter, the AEPD proposed a fine of 1.500 euros against the data controller for a violation of the data minimisation principle.
The defendant argued that the surveillance cameras was placed outside its establishment for security reasons. In addition, it claimed that the surveillance system was set up to comply with a mandatory regularity provision. However, the AEPD ruled it was not clear from the facts that the surveillance system implemented complies with the regulation in force given the distance of the cameras. Lastly, the defendant requested to dismiss the action on the basis of the violation of its right to defense and its presumption of innocence.
Dispute
The issue was whether the use of surveillance cameras recording personal data of pedestrian was justified and proportionate.
Holding
First, the APED decided there were no violation of the right to presumption or innocence, neither of the right to a fair trial and that the procedure should continue. Indeed, it pointed out that the defendant had the opportunity to provide for evidence regarding the surveillance video system and it did not provide for any.
Also, the AEPD ruled that the surveillance cameras affected the rights of any passengers taking the side walk which was recorded by the cameras. The authority pointed out that the processing of personal data in public spaces should be carried out only by the public forces. Otherwise, the recording of public spaces by private entities has to be essential for the purpose of surveillance that is intended, or it is impossible to avoid it because of the location of those. In any case, any processing of data which is unnecessary for the intended purpose must be avoided. It has been concluded that the defendant did not succeed to justified the use of surveillance cameras.
Consequently, the APED decided to issue a fine of 1.500 € for the violation of the principle of data minimisation.
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 **Spanish** original. Please refer to the **Spanish** original for more details.
to be completed
