APD/GBA (Belgium) - 57/2022
From GDPRhub
| APD/GBA - Decision 57/2022 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Authority: | APD/GBA (Belgium) |
| Jurisdiction: | Belgium |
| Relevant Law: | Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) Act of 21 March 2007 regulating the installation and use of surveillance cameras Act of 3 December 2017 establishing the Data Protection Authority Article 58 WOG Article 60 WOG Article 62 § 1 WOG |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Rejected |
| Started: | 11.03.2021 |
| Decided: | 19.04.2022 |
| Published: | |
| Fine: | n/a |
| Parties: | Complainant: Mr. X Controllers: Mr. Y1 and Mr. Y2 |
| National Case Number/Name: | Decision 57/2022 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | N/A |
| Appeal: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | Dutch |
| Original Source: | Decision 57/2022 of 19 April 2022 (in NL) |
| Initial Contributor: | niilvfer |
The Data Protection Authority decided that cases concerning camera surveillance by neighbours are to be dealt with by the police, due to the Act of March 2007 (regulating the installation of surveillance cameras).
English Summary
Facts
On 11 March 2021, Mr. X, "the complainant", filed a complaint with the Data Protection Authority (DPA), against Mr. Y1 and Ms. Y2, "the controllers". The subject of the complaint was the installation of surveillance cameras which were positioned to film the complainant's property.
On 30 March 2021, the complaint was dismissed by the Front-line Service of the DPA, on the basis of Article 58 and 60 of the Act of 3 December 2017 establishing the Data Protection Authority (WOG). The complaint was then transferred to the Disputes Chamber as per Article 62 WOG.
On 22 February 2022, the complainant informed the Disputes Chamber that its complaint is still pending.
Holding
The DPA held that the complaint must be dismissed on the ground of policy considerations. It held that the Act of 21 March 2007 regulating the installation and use of surveillance cameras designated the police force as the body primarily responsible for monitoring the provisions of the Act. The local police were notified by the complainant. The DPA, therefore, wished to avoid a double investigation.
The DPA held that the case file did not contain sufficient evidence to conclude that there was a breach of personal data protection regulations. There was no evidence providing a clear violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Furthermore, there were limited means available to the DPA in order to investigate every case concerning surveillance cameras where neighbours are involved.
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 Dutch original. Please refer to the Dutch original for more details.
1/4
Dispute room
Decision 57/2022 of April 19, 2022
File number : DOS-2021-01206
Subject: Camera surveillance by neighbour
The Disputes Chamber of the Data Protection Authority, composed of Mr Hielke Hijmans,
single chairperson;
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and Council of 27 April 2016 on
the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and
on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General
Data Protection Regulation), hereinafter GDPR;
Having regard to the law of 3 December 2017 establishing the Data Protection Authority, hereinafter WOG;
Having regard to the internal rules of procedure, as approved by the Chamber of Representatives
on December 20, 2018 and published in the Belgian Official Gazette on January 15, 2019;
Having regard to the documents in the file;
has taken the following decision regarding:
.
The complainant: Mr X, hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”; .
.
The controllers: Mr Y1 and Ms Y2, hereinafter “the
controllers” Decision 57/2022 - 2/4
I. Facts procedure
10. On March 11, 2021, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Data Protection Authority against the
controller.
11. The subject of the complaint concerns the installation of surveillance cameras by the
controllers (neighbours of the complainant), who, according to the complainant, are
are that these also film parts of his property.
12. On March 30, 2021, the complaint will be declared admissible by the Frontline Service on the basis of the
Articles 58 and 60 WOG and the complaint on the basis of art. 62, §1 WOG transferred to the
Dispute room.
13. On February 22, 2022, the complainant notifies the Disputes Chamber that his complaint is still
is current.
II. Justification
5. On the basis of the elements in the file known to the Disputes Chamber, and on the basis of the
powers assigned to it by the legislator on the basis of Article 95, §1 WOG, decides
the Disputes Chamber about the further follow-up of the file; in this case, the Disputes Chamber
to dismiss the complaint in accordance with Article 95, §1, 3° WOG, on the basis of the
following justification.
6. When a complaint is dismissed, the Disputes Chamber must step up its decision
motivate and:
- to pronounce a technical dismissal if the file is not or not sufficiently
contains elements that could lead to a conviction, or if there is insufficient prospect
consists of a conviction for a technical impediment, which prevents
decision can be made;
- or to declare a policy dismissal if, despite the presence of elements that lead to
may lead to a sanction, not the continuation of the investigation of the file
seems appropriate in light of the priorities of the Data Protection Authority, such as
2
specified and explained in the dismissal policy of the Disputes Chamber.
1Court of Appeal Brussels, Section Market Chamber A, Chamber for Market Affairs, judgment 2020/AR/329, 2 September 2020, p. 18.
2 In this regard, the Disputes Chamber refers to its dismissal policy as set out in detail on the GBA's website:
https://www.dataprotectionauthority.be/publications/sepotbeleid-van-de-geschillenkamer.pdf Decision 57/2022 - 3/4
7. In the event that more than one ground is being discarded, the discarded grounds (or technically
dismissal and policy dismissal) in order of importance.3
8. In the present case, the Disputes Chamber will dismiss the complaint on the basis of
of policy considerations. There is one motive behind the decision of the
Dispute room why they consider it undesirable to follow up on the file and for that reason
decided not to proceed to, inter alia, a treatment on the merits.
9. The Disputes Chamber points out that the law of 21 March 2007 regulating the placement and
use of surveillance cameras designates the police as the primary authority
is responsible for supervising the provisions of the aforementioned law. It's up to the
local police that the decision to install a surveillance camera must be reported. The
local police are also authorized to make determinations within the framework of the criminal provisions that the
sanction non-compliance with this law. Following this, it appears from the file that the complainant
has submitted several complaints to the police service of (..). The Disputes Chamber wants in this connection
avoid a duplication of investigations involving both themselves and the police
would act with regard to the same facts.
10. Based on the information currently available to it, the Disputes Chamber does not consider it
appropriate to take action. The file does not contain sufficient evidence to
conclude that there is a clear breach of protection regulations
of personal data. In the absence of documents to substantiate a manifest infringement of the GDPR,
in connection with the limited resources available to the Data Protection Authority
disposal which makes it impossible for it to investigate any complaint regarding
camera surveillance in which neighbors are involved, the Disputes Chamber believes that on the basis of the
current elements in the file is not appropriate to take enforcement action with regard to
the present complaint.
III. Publication of the decision
11. Given the importance of transparency with regard to the decision-making of the
Litigation Chamber, this decision is published on the website of the
Data Protection Authority. However, it is not necessary that the identification data
of the parties be published directly.
3Ibid. Decision 57/2022 - 4/4
12. In accordance with its dismissal policy, the Disputes Chamber will refer the decision to the
transfer data controllers. After all, the Disputes Chamber has decided to
to notify the controller(s) of dismissal decisions ex officio. The
However, the Dispute Chamber waives such notification if the complainant requests anonymity
requested to the controller(s) and the notification of the
decision to the controller(s), even if it is pseudonymised, it
5
nevertheless makes it possible to (re)identify the complainant. This is not the case here.
FOR THESE REASONS,
the Dispute Chamber of the Data Protection Authority decides, after deliberation, to
dismiss the present complaint on the basis of art. 95, §1, 3° WOG.
Against this decision, pursuant to art. 108, §1 WOG, appeals must be lodged within a
term of thirty days, from the notification, to the Market Court (Brussels Court of Appeal), with
the Data Protection Authority as the defendant.
To enable the complainant to consider other possible remedies, the
Disputes Chamber the complainant to the explanation in its dismissal policy.
(Get). Hielke Hijmans
Chairman of the Disputes Chamber
4
cf. Title 5 – Will the dismissal of my complaint be published? Will the counterparty be notified? from the
dismissal policy of the Disputes Chamber.
5Ibid.
6
cf. Title 4 – What can I do if my complaint is closed? of the Disputes Chamber's dismissal policy.
