AEPD (Spain) - EXP202103746

From GDPRhub
Revision as of 13:34, 13 December 2023 by Ar (talk | contribs) (Ar moved page AEPD (Spain) - PS/00601/2021 to AEPD (Spain) - EXP202103746)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
AEPD - PS-00601-2021
Authority: AEPD (Spain)
Jurisdiction: Spain
Relevant Law: Article 5(1)(c) GDPR
Article 58(2) GDPR
Article 83(5) GDPR
Article 12 Regulation 2016/679
Article 15 Regulation 2016/679
Article 16 Regulation 2016/679
Article 17 Regulation 2016/679
Article 18 Regulation 2016/679
Article 19 Regulation 2016/679
Article 20 Regulation 2016/679
Article 21 Regulation 2016/679
Article 22 Regulation 2016/679
Article 123 LPACAP
Article 22(4) LOPDGDD
Article 47 LOPDGDD
Article 48(1) LOPDGDD
Article 48(6) LOPDGDD
Article 63 LPACAP
Article 63(2) LOPDGDD
Article 64
Article 64(2) LOPDGDD
Article 65(4) LOPDGDD
Article 68(1) LOPDGDD
Type: Complaint
Outcome: Rejected
Started: 15.09.2021
Fine: n/a
Parties: A.A.A
National Case Number/Name: PS-00601-2021
European Case Law Identifier: n/a
Appeal: Unknown
Original Language(s): Spanish
Original Source: AEPD (in ES)
Initial Contributor: Inés López

The DPA held that there was no violation of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR because the installed surveillance cameras were oriented towards the controller's private property. Also, there was no evidence of unjustified infringement of public space.

English Summary


A complaint is filed against the controller for having six surveillance cameras facing public highway and private spaces without authorisation. In addition to the claim, there is also documentary evidence provided, proving the presence of the surveillance devices.


In this case the DPA, stated that private individuals are responsible for ensuring that systems installed comply with current legislation. Also, that installations of this type of device must be accompanied by mandatory informative signs. The DPA held that there is no violation of data minimisation, Article 5(1)(c) GDPR. No fines can be imposed against the controller and Article 83(5) GDPR can therefore not be imposed. This is because there is no evidence of any infringement of the rights of third parties or the taking of public space.


The rest of the conflicts in this case do not fall within the competence of this body and should be settled in appropriate judicial instances.

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.


     File No.: EXP202103746


Of the procedure instructed by the Spanish Agency for Data Protection and based on
to the following


FIRST: A.A.A. (*hereinafter, the complaining party) dated September 15,
2021 filed a claim with the Spanish Data Protection Agency. the re-

outcry is directed against B.B.B. with NIF ***NIF.1 (hereinafter, the claimed party).
The grounds on which the claim is based are succinctly as follows:

       “...they have video surveillance cameras oriented to public roads and spaces

private business of others, without authorization to do so” (folio No. 1).
Together with the notification, documentary evidence is provided that proves the presence of six

video-surveillance devices (Annex I).

SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of Organic Law 3/2018, of 5
December, of Protection of Personal Data and guarantee of digital rights (in

hereinafter LOPDGDD), said claim was transferred to the claimed party in fe-
date 10/26/21, to proceed with its analysis and inform this Agency on the

period of one month, of the actions carried out to adapt to the foreseen requirements
cough in the data protection regulations.

       The party complained against on 12/13/21 replied to this Agency confirming the

presence and operability of the cameras (print four monitors), arguing
civil matters and since other residents of the property have the same type of
maras oriented towards public area.

THIRD: On December 15, 2021, in accordance with article 65 of
the LOPDGDD, the claim presented by the claimant was admitted for processing.

FOURTH: On March 3, 2022, the Director of the Spanish Agency for Pro-

Data Protection agreed to initiate sanctioning proceedings against the claimed party, with
in accordance with the provisions of articles 63 and 64 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the
Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter,

LPACAP), for the alleged infringement of Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in the
Article 83.5 of the RGPD.

FIFTH: After consulting the database of this Agency, the Agreement has been notified

of Start on 03/04/22, without any response having been made by the party

C/ Jorge Juan, 6
28001 – Madrid 2/5

SIXTH: On 05/20/22, a “Resolution Proposal” is issued, in which the
Archive of this procedure as it is not proven that with the system of

cameras that are the subject of the claim capture public and/or private space of third parties,
limiting the collection to the private space of the person claimed, being the same

notified in a timely manner.

Of the actions carried out in this procedure and the documentation
in the file, the following have been accredited:

                                 PROVEN FACTS

First. The facts bring cause of the claim dated 09/15/21 through the
which is transferred to this body the following facts:

       “...they have video surveillance cameras oriented to public roads and spaces
private business of others, without authorization to do so” (folio No. 1).

Second. It is identified as the main responsible B.B.B., with ***NIF.1.

Third. The availability of an operating system for video cameras is accredited.
deo-surveillance although it is limited to their private property.

Fourth. The presence of an informative poster in the access area to the

home of the respondent, reporting that it is a video-monitored area.

Fifth. No affectation has been found to the right of third parties or the capture of space.

public dece.

                            FOUNDATIONS OF LAW


In accordance with the powers that article 58.2 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (Re-

General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter RGPD), grants each authori-
control and as established in articles 47, 48.1, 64.2 and 68.1 of the Law

Organic 3/2018, of December 5, on the Protection of Personal Data and guarantee of
digital rights (hereinafter, LOPDGDD), is competent to initiate and resolve
this procedure the Director of the Spanish Data Protection Agency.

Likewise, article 63.2 of the LOPDGDD determines that: “The formal procedures
ted by the Spanish Agency for Data Protection will be governed by the provisions of
Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in this organic law, by the regulatory provisions

dictated in its development and, as long as they do not contradict them, with a sub-
sidiario, by the general rules on administrative procedures.”

C/ Jorge Juan, 6
28001 – Madrid 3/5


In the present case, we proceed to examine the claim presented in this body

ism, transferring the presence of a "video-surveillance system" that affects according to
manifested in private areas without proper authorization, which may affect
public area without just cause.

Article 5.1.c) of the RGPD provides that personal data will be “adequate, pertinent,
limited and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed
(“data minimization”).”

It should be remembered that individuals are responsible for ensuring that the systems installed
felled comply with current legislation, proving that it complies with all
the requirements demanded by the regulations in force.

The installation of this type of device must have the mandatory informative sign.
tive, indicating the purposes and responsible for the treatment, where appropriate, of the data of each
personal character.

Article 22.4 of the LOPDGDD provides that:

       “The duty of information provided for in article 12 of the Regulation (EU)
2016/679 will be understood to be fulfilled by placing an informative device

in a sufficiently visible place identifying, at least, the existence of the treatment,
the identity of the person in charge and the possibility of exercising the rights provided for in the
Articles 15 to 22 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. It may also be included in the

informative device a connection code or internet address to this information”.

In any case, the cameras must be oriented towards the particular space, avoiding
intimidate neighboring neighbors with this type of device, as well as control areas

transit of the same without just cause.

Nor can images of public spaces be obtained with this type of device,
as this is the exclusive competence of the State Security Forces and Bodies.

It should be remembered that even in the case of a "simulated" camera, the same
should preferably be oriented towards private space, since it is considered
that this type of device can affect the privacy of third parties, that they are inti-

measured by it in the belief of being the subject of permanent recording.

On the part of individuals, it is not possible to install imaging devices
of public space, outside the cases allowed in the regulations.


In accordance with the evidence available in this proceeding,
penalty, it is considered that the claimed party has a system of

C/ Jorge Juan, 6
28001 – Madrid 4/5

chambers that exclusively affect your private property, regardless of
other problems that may exist of a civil nature.

       The evidence provided by the respondent confirms the presence of the
cameras, although they are duly marked and are oriented exclusively to their
private property (Annex I frames), not appreciating affectation of space

public without just cause.

       The rest of the "problems" between the parties do not fall within the framework
competence of this body, and must be settled in the judicial instances

timely, and must avoid instrumentalizing this Agency for matters more
of civil law than of the matter at hand.


The principle of presumption of innocence prevents imputing an administrative offense
when proof of charge accrediting the criminals has not been obtained and verified.
facts that motivate the imputation or the intervention in them of the presumed infraction

thor. Applying the principle "in dubio pro reo" in case of doubt regarding a fact
concrete and determined, which obliges in any case to resolve said doubt in the most
favorable to the interested party.

The presumption of innocence must govern without exceptions in the legal system
sanctioning and must be respected in the imposition of any sanctions, since
the exercise of the ius puniendi in its diverse manifestations is conditioned to the

game of evidence and a contradictory procedure in which they can defend themselves
own positions. In this sense, the Constitutional Court in its Judgment

76/1990, of 04/26, considers that the right to the presumption of innocence entails:
"that the sanction is based on acts or means of proof of charge or incriminating
of the reproached conduct; that the burden of proof corresponds to the one who accuses, without

that no one is obliged to prove his own innocence; and that any insufficiency in
the result of the tests carried out, freely assessed by the
sanctioning, must be translated into an acquittal pronouncement.

The presumption of innocence governs without exceptions in the sanctioning system and has
to be respected in the imposition of any sanction, whether criminal or administrative
(TCo 13/1981), since the exercise of the sanctioning right in any of its

manifestations, is conditioned to the test game and to a procedure
contradictory environment in which their own positions can be defended.

Pursuant to this principle, no penalty may be imposed on the basis of the

guilt of the accused if there is no activity to prove the charge, which in the
appreciation of the authorities or bodies called to resolve, destroy this
presumption (TCo Auto 3-12-81).

C/ Jorge Juan, 6
28001 – Madrid 5/5

All this without prejudice to the possibility of proceeding if deemed necessary to

inspect the installed camera system in case of alteration of the current ones
stated factual circumstances.

Therefore, in accordance with the applicable legislation, the Director of the Spanish Agency
Data Protection Regulation RESOLVES:

FIRST: ORDER the ARCHIVE of these proceedings as there is no-

accredited the commission of any administrative infraction in the matter that we

SECOND: NOTIFY this resolution to B.B.B..

Against this resolution, which puts an end to the administrative procedure in accordance with art. 48.6 of the
LOPDGDD, and in accordance with the provisions of article 123 of the LPACAP, the
resents may optionally file an appeal for reconsideration before the Director
of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection within a month from the date of

the day following the notification of this resolution or directly contentious appeal
before the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the National High Court,
in accordance with the provisions of article 25 and section 5 of the additional provision
Final fourth of Law 29/1998, of July 13, regulating the Contentious Jurisdiction-

administrative, within a period of two months from the day following the notification
tion of this act, as provided for in article 46.1 of the aforementioned Law.

Sea Spain Marti

Director of the Spanish Data Protection Agency

C/ Jorge Juan, 6
28001 – Madrid