VDAI (Lithuania) - 3R-753
| VDAI - 3R-753 | |
|---|---|
| [[File:|center|250px]] | |
| Authority: | VDAI (Lithuania) |
| Jurisdiction: | Lithuania |
| Relevant Law: | Article 2(2)(c) GDPR Article 5(1)(a) GDPR Article 5(1)(c) GDPR Article 6(1)(f) GDPR |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Partly Upheld |
| Started: | 14.06.2024 |
| Decided: | 23.06.2025 |
| Published: | |
| Fine: | n/a |
| Parties: | n/a |
| National Case Number/Name: | 3R-753 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | n/a |
| Appeal: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | Lithuanian |
| Original Source: | VDAI (in LT) |
| Initial Contributor: | cci |
In a case involving two neighbours, the DPA held that the one-time collection of personal data via an aerial drone, in order to collect proof for court proceedings, fell under the household exemption of the GDPR.
English Summary
Facts
The controller (a natural person) and the data subject are neighbours involved in a legal dispute over their borders.
The controller installed a CCTV camera on their plot of land. The camera’s field of view was initially obscured in order to exclude an area which did not belong to him. Following the repeated and unlawful destruction of the controller’s gate at the hand of the data subject, the controller unveiled the camera in order to monitor the entire field of view, including the gate. As a result, the camera covered both the controller’s gate and a part of the data subject’s property.
The data subject filed a complaint, claiming that the data subject had no legal basis to record their property. Furthermore, the data subject claimed that the controller did not comply with their oral request to delete the footage. Finally, the data subject complained that the controller unlawfully recorded their property with a drone and later used the footage as evidence in court.
Holding
The DPA ordered the controller to move the camera or obscure part of its field of view, in order to prevent the recording of the data subject’s property.
The DPA did not uphold the data subject’s other claims. The DPA held that the recording via the drone, and the subsequent use of the footage in court proceedings, fell under the GDPR’s household exemption (Article 2(2)(c) GDPR). Additionally, the DPA dismissed the claim over the right to erasure because the data subject failed to prove that they requested the erasure in the first place.
On the camera
The DPA first clarified that the controller could not rely on the household exemption of the GDPR because they were recording not only their own property but also the data subject’s. In this regard, the DPA acknowledged that ownership for some of the recorded area was controversial and constituted the object of pending litigation. However, the data subject was the owner according to cadastral data at the time of the investigation, which formed legal proof.
The DPA held that the controller was justified in monitoring their gate, as they had a legitimate interest in protecting their property. However, this interest did not justify the recording of a part of the data subject’s property. So, the DPA held that while the recording of the gate was lawful, the recording of the data subject’s property was both unlawful and excessive (and therefore violated Articles 5(1)(a) and (c) GDPR).
On the drone
The DPA held that the use of the drone to film the data subject’s property, was covered by the household exemption of the GDPR. In this regard, the DPA referred to EDPB guidance[1].
In particular, the GDPR considered that the controller did not publish any footage. The DPA also considered that the controller did not continuously record the data subject’s property. Rather, the controller only recorded the property once in order to provide a court with proof of a specific claim.
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 Lithuanian original. Please refer to the Lithuanian original for more details.
