AEPD - PS/00054/2020
|AEPD - PS/00054/2020|
|Relevant Law:||Article 5(1)(c) GDPR|
Article 13 GDPR
Article 22 LOPDGDD
|National Case Number/Name:||PS/00054/2020|
|European Case Law Identifier:||n/a|
|Original Source:||AEPD (in ES)|
|Initial Contributor:||Francesc Julve Falcó|
The Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) imposed a warning sanction on a private individual for the installation of a video surveillance system without informing the subjects who may be recorded of the data processing, in violation of Article 13 and Article 5 (1) (c) GDPR.
English Summary[edit | edit source]
Facts[edit | edit source]
The complainant lodged a complaint with the AEPD about the installation of video surveillance cameras in the neighbours' doorway, from which several entrances to homes could be monitored, and believed that excessive and disproportionate use was being made of the video surveillance system in relation to data protection regulations.
The defendant responded that the installation of the video surveillance system was necessary to protect himself and his family from neighbourhood disputes caused by non-payment by his tenants.
Dispute[edit | edit source]
Is the installation of a video surveillance system in a community of neighbours, without the authorization of the rest of the neighbours, a breach of Article 13 GDPR?
Holding[edit | edit source]
The AEPD held that the video surveillance system was excessive in relation to the purposes alleged by the defendant. It imposed a warning sanction and ordered that the system should only be operational when the defendant or his family were living at the address where the camera was located.
Given that the defendant is a natural person, that there is no evidence of recidivism and that, furthermore, he has shown cooperation with the AEPD in repairing the possible damage caused, it was decided to impose a warning sanction.
Comment[edit | edit source]
Share your comments here!
Further Resources[edit | edit source]
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision[edit | edit source]
The decision below is a machine translation of the Spanish original. Please refer to the Spanish original for more details.
1/14 Procedure Nº: PS / 00054/2020 RESOLUTION OF SANCTIONING PROCEDURE Of the procedure instructed by the Spanish Agency for Data Protection and based on to the following BACKGROUND FIRST: On September 6, 2019, you entered this Agency Española de Protección de Datos a document submitted by A.A.A., on behalf of by B.B.B. (hereinafter, the claimant), through which he makes a claim against C.C.C. with NIF *** NIF.1 (hereinafter, the claimed one), for the installation of a system video surveillance in the property located at *** ADDRESS.1 - *** LOCALIDAD.1 (OURENSE), with respect to which there are indications of a possible breach of the provided in the regulations for the protection of personal data. The reasons that support the claim are the following: "Don C.C.C., installs surveillance camera in the stairwell, without authorization for our part, no mention, that he is going to put a camera. The fact is that we we feel totally intimidated and controlled by the owner of the house. Not in- we have the end, because there is no vandalism, and this control of knowing our entrances and exits of the farm, makes us think that it is for a bad purpose because of his Part, because we know that it shows people our entrances and exits of the building. Well, this man is the owner of a house with 2 houses, one of them is the one that I have rented, and a place that is to use and enjoy it. For which there is no Community of owners. And without further ado he has placed this camera that I am attaching a photo- spellings. There is no sign of said camera […] " Attach photo report showing the location of the camera. SECOND: Prior to the admission for processing of this claim, a transferred the defendant, in accordance with the provisions of article 65.4 of the Law Organic 3/2018, of December 5, Protection of Personal Data and guarantee of digital rights (hereinafter, LOPDGDD). The aforementioned transfer was returned by “Absent” and “surplus (not picked up in office)” on 10/31/2019. The day 07/11/2019 was made a reiteration that was again returned as "absent" and "surplus (no withdrawn in office) ”on 11/27/2019. THIRD: The claim was admitted for processing by resolution of 18 February 2020. FOURTH: On June 8, 2020, the Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection agreed to initiate a sanctioning procedure to the claimed, by the alleged infringements of articles 5.1.c) and 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter RGPD), typified in the Article 83.5 of the same rule. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 2/14 FIFTH: As the notification of the initiation agreement was unsuccessful, the proceeded to publish a notification announcement on the Single Edictal Board of the Bulletin Official of the State on July 8, 2020, in accordance with the provisions of the Article 44 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on Administrative Procedure Common of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP). SIXTH: On September 1, 2020, the instructor of the procedure agreed to the opening of a period of practice of tests, requiring the Command of the Civil Guard of Ourense so that, within 30 days, it would issue the corresponding report where it was found: Effective address of the claimed at the indicated address. Existence of a video surveillance device in the aforementioned property. Presence of an informative poster adapted to the regulations in force. Orientation of the installed cameras and their catchment area. If allowed by the claimed, it is requested that they be observed and informed about the images displayed on the monitor. Any other aspect that is considered appropriate to review. SEVENTH: On September 16, 2019, the Civil Guard Command of Ourense sends the report issued by the Commander of the Acctal Post. of the Guard Civil of *** LOCALIDAD.1 on September 12, 2020. The content of the report is the following: "[…]1. In relation to the effective address of the claimed and if it is the indicated address the complaint informs that the claimed person does not reside in the place where he / she is installed the video surveillance system. It resides on the street *** ADDRESS. 2 belonging to the town of *** LOCALIDAD.2 (Madrid) and with telephone number […]. 2 On the existence of a video surveillance device in the aforementioned property; I know informs that a video camera installed on the aforementioned portal has been found building, located on the wall opposite the entrance door to the portal, this being a common area, from where the stairs that give access to the two floors start superiors that make up the only dwellings in the building. 3º Regarding the presence of an informative poster adapted to the regulations in force. It is reported that there are 2 informational signs, one of them in located on a door metal just below the chamber and the other located on the wall adjacent to the place where the camera is about ten feet away. It means that the two Announcement signs are similar. 4th As has been outlined in point 2, regarding the orientation of the cameras installed and catchment area of these. It is reported that there is only one camera, the which is located on the wall opposite the entrance door to the building's portal. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 3/14 Supposedly this camera captures the images inside the portal. Regarding the type of images that are recorded is unknown, since the holder does not reside and does not allow the observation. 4th (Sic.) The person responsible for the recorded images is D. C.C.C. and it is specified on the poster. 5th Photographic Annex is attached. " Attach the following photos: Photographic image of the portal of the property where the camera and the two posters. Enlarged photographic image of the poster. EIGHTH: On the occasion of the knowledge of the claimed effective address, confirmed by the Planning and Institutional Relations Service of the Tax Agency in the consultation carried out, on October 2, 2020, a copy of the report issued by the Civil Guard, as well as a copy of the agreement to initiate the present proceeding. The defendant presented, on October 21, 2020, an answering brief where makes the following statements: “[…] Reasons why a security camera is placed on the portal of said edifice. - On the second floor of said building there are some tenants of the company […] (before). These men were evicted for non-payment in April 2019 by the Court […]. In May of the same year the property was rented to me again by a man who He claims to be the administrator of a company called […] (after), which is my surprise that they send me a message on my mobile and it turns out that they are the same tenants who already They had been evicted a month earlier mocking me and mocking that they were back in the house, changing the name of the company. All this for Of course, it was communicated at that time to my lawyer and the court. - In August 2019, in our holiday stay, on the first floor of the property; One night at dawn, one of the people who are on the second floor rented (very aggressive and pushy). In that At that moment my wife and I had an attack of anxiety and fear. These events occurred on 08/07/2019 01:50 AM and 08/08/2019 05:30 AM, which were testified in an appearance procedure before the Civil Guard and attested No. […], which is communicated to the Court […]. - The most important reason why I have thought about putting a security camera is to fully protect my family and me in case at some point they coincide in the portal or on the stairs of the building so that the worst would not happen. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 4/14 - Upon my arrival in Madrid, I contact the AEPD to find out if I could proceed with the installation of a security camera in the portal of the building (where the camera currently). After exposing the location of the camera and the range of the same, the answer by this organism was affirmative, informing me of that I had to put all my personal data: responsible, exercise your rights of data protection before and the information on the treatment of personal data; as stated in the posters that were provided to me in the same AEPD and posts visible in the portal of the building, where they are currently warning of said camera, which was installed in August 2019 without going into operation until on 09/21/2019. - It is not in my interest at all to save images of who enters or leaves the building, only to ensure the full safety of my family […]. I have not shown any kind of image or personal data of these gentlemen. Therefore, the images provided by the camera are erased absolutely and daily. […] " Attach 7 images captured from October 15 to 19, 2020 in different times showing the camera's field of view NINTH: On December 11, 2020, a resolution proposal was formulated, in which it is proposed that a penalty of warning be imposed on the defendant, for an infringement of article 5.1.c) of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5 of the same standard, as well as to certify the adoption of measures. In this proposal grants a period of 10 days for the claimed person to be able to consider in his defense, as well as present the documents and information that it considers pertinent, in accordance with article 89.2 of Law 39/2015, of October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP). TENTH: In the event of a faulty first attempt to notify the proposed resolution by the Post Office, the aforementioned proposal. The notification took place on February 2, 2021 and the defendant has submitted writing on February 15, 2021, in which it shows what following: "[...] 1º- On February 2, 2021, I received the proposed resolution of the letter that in its day I sent to AEPD, the resolution proposal being a warning sanction. I inform you that that same day the camera was disconnected, as you have ordered me. 2º- On January 2, 2021, I proceed to sue the company […], whose legal representatives or administrators are A.A.A. and B.B.B .. The reason for the lawsuit is the non-payment of the rents or amounts due, requesting the court No1 of instruction of XXXXXXXX eviction from the 2nd floor C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 5/14 of said property. On February 3, 2021, I received the answer from the court that I contributed to my writing. as evidence for the record, the legal grounds of which are listed therein, not accommodating the enervation of the eviction action, leaving the view for the next 9/3/2021 and subsequent launch of direct eviction of the leased property for the 3/18/2021. Being grateful in advance and very satisfied with the proposed resolution, I remain entirely at your disposal. " Enclosed Decree of February 3, 2021 issued by the Lawyer of the Administration of Justice of the Court of 1st Instance and Instruction of XXXXXXXX in Verbal Trial of Eviction. In view of all the actions, by the Spanish Agency for Data Protection In the present proceeding, the following are considered proven facts, C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 6/14 ACTS FIRST: On September 6, 2019, you have entry into the Spanish Agency for Written Data Protection of the claimant in which he informs the existence of a camera in the stairwell of the building where the housing where he resides under a lease and located at *** ADDRESS. 1 - *** LOCALITY. 1 (Ourense). The photographs provided together with the claim show a camera located in the enclosure of the portal of the property. This building, divided into 3 floors (ground, 1st and 2nd) is property in its entirety of the claimed, who has reserved use of the home of the 1st floor. SECOND: The defendant does not have his habitual residence in the property, being his address *** ADDRESS.2 - *** LOCALITY.2 (Madrid). THIRD: In order to guarantee the right to defense of the defendant and the principle of contradiction, it was agreed to refer the defendant on October 2, 2010, once the address of your habitual residence is known, a letter accompanied by copy of the agreement to initiate the sanctioning procedure, as well as the report to which reference has been made in the previous event. This writing was collected by the claimed on October 15. FOURTH: The defendant declares in his answering brief of October 21, 2020 that the camera was installed in August 2019 and became operational on 21 September 2019. Does not include accreditation. FIFTH: The frames of dates October 15 to 19, 2020 provided by the claimed in their answering brief, they show that the field of view of the chamber is circumscribed to the internal enclosure of the portal of access to the property and to part of the flight of stairs. SIXTH: The defendant states in his letter that the placement of the camera in his current location responds to the purpose of guaranteeing the safety of its person, as well as the members of his family, before unfriendly encounters with the inhabitants of the rented apartment that could occur in the portal and on the stairs, taking into account the problematic contractual relationship and various antecedents that relates in his writing. SEVENTH: The photographs attached to the report to which it is referred, evidence the presence of two informative posters, which offer information about the person in charge, the possibility and address where to go to exercise the rights contained in articles 15 to 22 of the GDPR, as well as an email address and a telephone where to request more information. EIGHTH: The complained party communicates a change of address to Calle *** ADDRESS. 3 - *** LOCALITY. 3. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 7/14 NINTH: In the brief presented on February 15, 2021, the defendant states that he proceeded to disconnect the camera installed on February 2. FOUNDATIONS OF LAW I The Director of the Spanish Agency is competent to resolve this procedure of Data Protection, in accordance with the provisions of art. 58.2 of the GDPR and in art. 47 and 48.1 of LOPDGDD. II The defendant is charged, on the one hand, with the commission of an offense for violation of article 5.1.c) of the RGPD that personal data will be “adequate, pertinent and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed ("Data minimization"). " On the other hand, the commission of another offense for violation of the Article 13 of the RGPD, which establishes that: "1. When personal data relating to him are obtained from an interested party, the responsible for the treatment, at the time these are obtained, will provide all the information indicated below: a) the identity and contact details of the person in charge and, where appropriate, of their representative; b) the contact details of the data protection officer, if applicable; c) the purposes of the treatment to which the personal data are destined and the legal basis of the treatment; d) when the treatment is based on article 6, paragraph 1, letter f), the interests legitimate of the person in charge or of a third party; e) the recipients or categories of recipients of personal data, in their case; f) where appropriate, the intention of the person responsible to transfer personal data to a third party country or international organization and the existence or absence of a decision of adequacy of the Commission, or, in the case of transfers indicated in the Articles 46 or 47 or Article 49, paragraph 1, second subparagraph, reference to the adequate or appropriate warranties and the means to obtain a copy of these or to the fact that they have been borrowed. 2. In addition to the information mentioned in section 1, the person responsible for the treatment will facilitate the interested party, at the time the data is obtained C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 8/14 personal information, the following information necessary to guarantee data processing loyal and transparent: a) the period during which the personal data will be kept or, when it is not possible, the criteria used to determine this deadline; b) the existence of the right to request the data controller for access to the personal data relating to the interested party, and its rectification or deletion, or the limitation of its treatment, or to oppose the treatment, as well as the right to portability of the data; c) when the treatment is based on article 6, paragraph 1, letter a), or article 9, paragraph 2, letter a), the existence of the right to withdraw consent in at any time, without affecting the legality of the treatment based on the consent prior to its withdrawal; d) the right to file a claim with a supervisory authority; e) if the communication of personal data is a legal or contractual requirement, or a necessary requirement to sign a contract, and if the interested party is obliged to provide personal data and is informed of the possible consequences of not provide such data; f) the existence of automated decisions, including profiling, to be referred to in article 22, paragraphs 1 and 4, and, at least in such cases, information significant on the applied logic, as well as the importance and consequences provided for said treatment for the interested party. 3.When the data controller plans the further processing of data personal data for a purpose other than that for which they were collected, will provide the interested party, prior to said further processing, information on that other purpose and any additional relevant information pursuant to section 2. 4.The provisions of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not apply when and in the to the extent that the interested party already has the information. " The aforementioned infractions are classified in article 83.5 of the RGPD, which provides the following: "Violations of the following provisions will be sanctioned, in accordance with the paragraph 2, with administrative fines of a maximum of EUR 20,000,000 or, in the case of a company, an amount equivalent to a maximum of 4% of the total annual global business volume of the previous financial year, opting for the highest amount: a) the basic principles for the treatment, including the conditions for the treatment consent in accordance with articles 5, 6, 7 and 9; b) the rights of the interested parties in accordance with articles 12 to 22 […] " C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 9/14 For the purposes of the statute of limitations for offenses, both offenses are considered very serious and prescribe after three years, in accordance with article 72.1 of the LOPDGDD, which establishes that: "Based on what is established in article 83.5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, considered very serious and will prescribe after three years the infractions that suppose a substantial violation of the articles mentioned therein and, in particular, the following: a) The processing of personal data violating the principles and guarantees established in article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. […] h) The omission of the duty to inform the affected party about the processing of their data personal in accordance with the provisions of articles 13 and 14 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and 12 of this Organic Law. […] " III Article 6.1 of the RGPD establishes the cases in which the processing of personal data, providing within them - article 6.1.e) - the that refers to the legality "the treatment is necessary for the fulfillment of a mission carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of public powers conferred on the person responsible for the treatment ”. In the specific field of data processing for video surveillance purposes, the Article 22.1 of the LOPDGDD provides that “people may carry out the Image processing through camera or video camera systems with the purpose of preserving the safety of people and property, as well as their facilities ”dedicating the rest of the sections of this article to the specificities to which this data processing must be submitted. In this sense, and with regard to the specific case that is the object of this present sanctioning procedure, it can be affirmed, taking into account the declarations made by the defendant about the purpose pursued with the chamber of video surveillance installed on the portal of the property of which it is the owner and in which maintains a home for his personal use, that said treatment responds to the objective of guaranteeing the safety of people (the claimed person and the family members) in the face of the problematic relationships maintained with tenants who reside in the rented dwelling within the property owned by the reclaimed. We would, therefore, be faced with a case in the person responsible for the treatment performs a mission in the public interest. Now, to consider the concurrence of the public interest, this must be proportionate with respect to the purpose pursued, inasmuch as its exercise is susceptible to affect the physical image as personal data and therefore represents a interference in the field of fundamental rights of people. What Consequently, it will be necessary to make a weighting between the mission of public interest to ensure the safety of people carried out by the responsible for the treatment and the rights of the tenants, who in the present Of course, their privacy and freedom of movement may be affected by the fact that the C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 10/14 The area captured by the camera affects the common area that serves as access to both households. In order to carry out this weighting and evaluate the proportionality of the measure, it is necessary to take into consideration the Judgment of the Constitutional Court 207/1996, in which the High Court determines that “to verify whether a measure restriction of a fundamental right exceeds the judgment of proportionality, it is It is necessary to verify if it meets the following three requirements or conditions: if such measure is capable of achieving the proposed objective (suitability judgment); Yes, Furthermore, it is necessary, in the sense that there is no other more moderate measure to the achievement of such purpose with equal effectiveness (judgment of necessity); and finally yes it is weighted or balanced, as more benefits or advantages derive from it for the general interest that damages to other goods or values in conflict (judgment of proportionality in the strict sense) ”. Applying, therefore, this judgment of proportionality to the specific assumption proceeds note the following: ● The installation of a video surveillance system can be considered an ideal means to achieve in order to guarantee the safety of the claimed and their family, for how much it is capable of fulfilling both a preventive objective and proving documentary evidence of the occurrence of certain events that suppose an attack on said security. ● It can be considered that the treatment complies with the principle of minimizing data and is moderate with respect to the area captured by the camera since it is limits to areas only to areas common to both houses where they can coincide the claimed and the tenants, without affecting the area in any way exclusive of use and enjoyment of these. ● It can also be considered that the treatment complies with the principle of minimization of data and is moderate in relation to the conservation period of the images, for the aforementioned term, in accordance with what was stated by the claimed, it is only 1 day. ● However, given that the purpose alleged by the defendant is ensure the safety of your person and your family members during the time in which any of them makes use of their home in the property and therefore both can coincide spatially and temporally with the tenants (without there being any alleged at no time the need to preserve the safety of one's own property), the processing of data would be excessive when those circumstances they do not take place, since they would exceed the purpose for which they respond. In conclusion, it cannot be said that it is proportionate that the system of installed video surveillance is operational at all times as the purpose pursued by the person in charge is not reached when the defendant or a member of your family is not using the home in the property; in this In this circumstance, it could not be concluded that the mission of public interest prevails over fundamental rights of those affected. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 11/14 In accordance, therefore, with the foregoing, the video surveillance system, to the extent that was operational all the time (it was disconnected on February 2), violated the provisions of article 5.1.c) of the RGPD. IV Regarding the duty of information provided for in article 12 of the RGPD (with the content provided in the subsequent article 13, article 22.4 of the LOPDGDD determines that “[…] It will be understood that it has been fulfilled by placing an information device in sufficiently visible place identifying, at least, the existence of the treatment, the identity of the person in charge and the possibility to exercise the rights provided in the Articles 15 to 22 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. It may also be included in the informational device a connection code or internet address to this information. In any case, the data controller must keep at the disposal of the affected the information referred to in the aforementioned regulation ”. According to the report and the photographic images provided by the report of the Commander of the Acctal Post. of the Civil Guard of *** LOCALIDAD.1, the system video surveillance has two informative posters that comply with the provisions in the previously transcribed precept as it identifies the existence of treatment and offers information about the person in charge, the possibility and direction to Where to go to exercise the rights contained in articles 15 to 22 of the RGPD, as well as an email address and a telephone number where to request more information. Regarding the possible breach of this duty at the time of filing the claim, it is noted that the defendant declares that, even when the cameras are installed in August 2019, the video surveillance system did not go into operation until September 21. Therefore, since it has not been proven that the camera will be in operation at the time of filing the claim (the claimant indicates that the person in charge has shown images of their tickets and exits from the building, but does not provide an indication in this regard), it is not possible to determine that there would have been on that date an effective data processing and, therefore, a omission of the duty of information. The principle of the right to the presumption of innocence, recognized as a right subjective fundamental in article 24 of the Spanish Constitution, prevents imposing an administrative sanction when a proof of charge accrediting the facts that motivate the imputation or the intervention in the the alleged offender and applying the principle "in dubio pro reo" in case of doubt regarding a concrete and determined fact, which in any case obliges resolve said doubt in the most favorable way to the interested party. The aforementioned right to the presumption of innocence is also included in a expressed in article 53.2.b) of Law 39/2015, of October 1, on the Procedure C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 12/14 Common Administration of Public Administrations (hereinafter, LPACAP), which states that: "two. In addition to the rights provided in the previous section, in the case of administrative procedures of a sanctioning nature, the alleged Responsible parties will have the following rights: […] B) The presumption of non-existence of administrative responsibility while not the contrary is proven. " In relation to this principle, the Constitutional Court in its Sentence 76/1990, of 26 April, considers that the right to the presumption of innocence entails: “that the sanction is based on acts or probative means of charge or incriminating of the reproached conduct; that the burden of proof rests with the accuser, without no one is obliged to prove their own innocence; and that any insufficiency in the result of the tests carried out, freely assessed by the sanctioning body, it must be translated into an acquittal. " V However, what is established in article 83.5, sections a) and b), of the RGPD, its art. 58.2 b) provides the possibility of sanctioning with warning, in relation to the indicated in Recital 148: "In the event of a minor offense, or if the fine that is likely to be imposed would constitute a disproportionate burden for an individual, rather than sanction by fine may be imposed a warning. It must however pay special attention to the nature, severity and duration of the offense, to its intentional nature, to the measures taken to alleviate the damages suffered, the degree of responsibility or any relevant prior infringement, the way in which that the supervisory authority has had knowledge of the infringement, to the fulfillment of measures ordered against the person in charge or in charge, to the adherence to codes of conduct and any other aggravating or mitigating circumstance. " In the present case, when deciding the sanction to impose, they have taken into account count the following items, That the person responsible is a natural person. That there is no recidivism or repetition due to the fact that the commission of previous infractions. ● That it has shown collaboration in this organization within the present sanctioning procedure Therefore, it is considered that the sanction that would correspond to impose is warning, in accordance with the provisions of article 58.2 b) of the RGPD, in relation to what is stated in Considering 148, cited above. C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 13/14 On the other hand, in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned article 58.2 d) of the RGPD, according to which each supervisory authority may 'order the person in charge or in charge of the treatment that the treatment operations conform to the provisions of the this Regulation, where appropriate, in a certain way and within a specified term […] ”, the person in charge must adapt the operation of the system video surveillance installed so that it is only operational when he or a member of your family make use of the home they have in the property where that is installed. Regarding this issue, the defendant has stated in his brief presented on the day February 15, having proceeded to disconnect the camera, so it is considered that the adequacy measure has been adopted and must be maintained as long as he or someone member of your family do not use the house. Therefore, in accordance with the applicable legislation and assessed the criteria of graduation of the sanctions whose existence has been accredited, the Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection RESOLVES: FIRST: IMPOSE C.C.C., with NIF *** NIF.1, for a violation of article 5.1.c), typified in article 83.5 of the aforementioned rule, a sanction of APPEARANCE. SECOND: ORDER, under the provisions of article 58.2.d) of the RGPD, that the video surveillance system is only operational when he or someone else member of their family make use of the home they have in the property where that one is installed. THIRD: NOTIFY this resolution to C.C.C. and inform the claimant. In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of the LOPDGDD, this Resolution will be made public once it has been notified to the interested parties. Against this resolution, which ends 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 Interested parties may optionally file an appeal for reconsideration before the Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection within a month to counting from the day after the notification of this resolution or directly contentious-administrative appeal before the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the National High Court, in accordance with the provisions of article 25 and section 5 of the fourth additional provision of Law 29/1998, of July 13, regulating the Contentious-administrative jurisdiction, within two months from the day following notification of this act, as provided in article 46.1 of the referred Law. Finally, it is pointed out that in accordance with the provisions of art. 90.3 a) of the LPACAP, may provisionally suspend the final resolution through administrative channels if the C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es 14/14 interested party expresses his intention to file contentious-administrative appeal. If this is the case, the interested party must formally communicate this fact through writing addressed to the Spanish Agency for Data Protection, presenting it through of the Electronic Registry of the Agency [https://sedeagpd.gob.es/sede-electronica- web /], or through any of the other records provided for in art. 16.4 of the cited Law 39/2015, of October 1. You must also transfer to the Agency the documentation that proves the effective filing of the contentious appeal- administrative. If the Agency was not aware of the filing of the appeal contentious-administrative within a period of two months from the day following the notification of this resolution would terminate the precautionary suspension. 938-131120 Mar Spain Martí Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection C / Jorge Juan, 6 www.aepd.es 28001 - Madrid sedeagpd.gob.es