Datainspektionen - DI-2019-7782

From GDPRhub
Revision as of 07:56, 7 December 2020 by Mh (talk | contribs)
Datainspektionen - DI-2019-7782
LogoSK.png
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 (housing with special services for adults) breached Articles 5(1)(a), 6(1), 9(2), 13, 35 and 36 GDPR and Section 15 of the Camera Surveillance Act. The DPA imposed an administrative fine of SEK 200,000 (approx. €19500).

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.