According to a judgement by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Data Protection Directive applies to a video recording made with a surveillance camera installed by a person on his family home and directed towards the public footpath.
Under the Data Protection Directive,1 it is not as a general rule permitted to process personal data unless the data subject has given his consent. However, the directive does not apply to the processing of data carried out by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity. The Court finds that this exception must be narrowly construed. Accordingly, video surveillance which covers a public space and which is accordingly directed outwards from the private setting of the person processing the data cannot be regarded as an activity which is a ‘purely personal or household activity’.
A man from the Czech Republic installed a surveillance camera on the family home, which filmed the entrance, public footpath and the entrance to the house opposite. After a window was broken, the recordings made by the surveillance camera made it possible to identify two suspects. However, one of the suspects disputed before the Czech Office for the Protection of Personal Data the legality of the processing. The Office found that the man had in fact infringed the personal data protection rules and fined him. In that connection, one of the points made by the Office was that the data on the suspect had been recorded without his consent while he was on the public footpath in front of his house.
The directive nevertheless makes it possible to assess that person’s legitimate interest in protecting the property, health and life of his family and himself. Specifically, firstly, one of the situations in which personal data processing is permissible without the consent of the data subject is where it is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller. Secondly, the data subject need not be told of the processing of his data where the provision of such information proves impossible or would involve a disproportionate effort. Thirdly, Member States may restrict the scope of the obligations and rights provided for under the Directive if such a restriction is necessary to safeguard the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.