Welcome to the seventh edition of the KPMG Global Legal Services newsletter on developments in the world of data protection and privacy law. We live in fast changing times in this area and our articles seek to demonstrate the state of development of the law in various jurisdictions whilst also showing the very broad impact that data protection law has. In this edition topics include new rights and obligations for German works councils, fines imposed by the Hellenic Data Protection Authority in 2020, Decisions published by the Turkish DPA, the latest sanctions imposed by the Romanian DPA and what the EU-UK Trade Agreement means for data protection.
Check out the contribution from Belgium regarding the use of camera surveillance: unlawful filming of public domain and private property.
Discover the complete newsletter below.
Use of camera surveillance: unlawful filming of public domain and private property
The Belgian Data Protection Authority (‘BDPA’) recently issued a decision regarding camera surveillance by a natural person. It concerned the unlawful filming of the public domain and private property with security cameras. The Belgian DPA decided that the defendants violated the provisions of the GDPR, resulting in a fine of 1.500 EUR.
The Belgian DPA received a complaint from two data subjects regarding the unlawful filming of the public domain and their private property with security cameras. In this case, the defendants had a video surveillance system installed on their premises consisting of five cameras. The neighbors of the defendants filed a complaint with the BDPA as certain cameras filmed part of the public domain and the private property of the plaintiffs -which the plaintiffs were informed of by a third party (independent expert) in the course of an ongoing environmental lawsuit between the plaintiffs and the defendants.
Those images provided in the court case by the independent expert were -according to the plaintiffs -not only the evidence of unlawful recording of the public domain and their private property, but also of the unlawful transmission of the recordings of those images to unauthorized third parties (i.e. the independent expert).
In its decision, the BDPA emphasized that the European Court of Justice has previously confirmed that the recording of images of persons with surveillance cameras falls under the concept of 'personal data' within the meaning of the EU data protection standards. The surveillance by means of video recordings of individuals, which are stored, is an automated processing of personal data within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the GDPR. The processing of personal data in this context must therefore also benefit from the same level of protection as provided for by the GDPR.
Read the full article here.