Datainspektionen - DI-2019-7782
| Datainspektionen - DI-2019-7782 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Authority: | Datainspektionen (Sweden) |
| Jurisdiction: | Sweden |
| Relevant Law: | Article 5(1)(a) GDPR Article 6(1) GDPR Article 9(2) GDPR Article 13 GDPR Article 35 GDPR Article 36 GDPR Kamerabevakningslagen (2018:1200) |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Upheld |
| Started: | |
| Decided: | 24.11.2020 |
| Published: | 24.11.2020 |
| Fine: | 200000 SEK |
| Parties: | n/a |
| National Case Number/Name: | DI-2019-7782 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | n/a |
| Appeal: | n/a |
| Original Language(s): | Swedish |
| Original Source: | Datainspektionen (in SV) |
| Initial Contributor: | Elisavet Dravalou |
The Swedish DPA held that the installation of CCTV cameras in the residence of an LSS home (which is housing with special services for adults) breached Articles 5(1)(a), 6(1), 9(2), 13, 35 and
36 of the GDPR and Section 15 of the Camera Surveillance Act and imposed an administrative fine of SEK 200,000.
English Summary
Facts
On 2 May 2019, the Swedish DPA received a complaint from a relative of the data subject
according to which Gnosjö's Social Affairs Committee (Socialutskott) processes personal data of a resident at one of the municipality's LSS homes (which is housing with special services for adults), through CCTV cameras. The Social Affairs Committee placed the CCTV cameras to increase the security of the resident, as the resident has demonstrated serious self-harming behaviour.
Dispute
The complainant stated that the Social Affairs Committee must have stated that CCTV camera surveillance takes place and ask the consent of the resident's family or guardian.
Holding
The Swedish DPA held that, although the intention of the Social Affairs Committee was to protect the resident from harming himself, the installation of CCTV cameras in the resident's bedroom is considered a big intrusion of the resident's privacy. This means that the processing of personal data has been disproportionate to the purpose. The processing of personal data that has taken place through the camera surveillance has thus not complied with Articles 5 (1)(a)(i), 6, 9 (2), and 13 of the GDPR.
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 Swedish original. Please refer to the Swedish original for more details.
