CCTV cameras installed without the consent of the residents of an apartment block are a privacy risk

CCTV cameras installed without the consent of the residents of an apartment building violate the residents’ right to privacy, according to a ruling by the Supreme Court of Lithuania in late December 2017. The dispute arose when a resident of the house, claiming to protect his property and that of the other residents, installed CCTV cameras in the main staircase of the house and on the external walls of the building. The cameras filmed the entrances to the building’s staircase, the pavement outside the building, the parking lot and even the entrance to one of the apartments. Residents of the building were practically unable to enter their apartments without being caught by cameras. The neighbours, the applicants in this case, clearly expressed their opposition to being filmed and lodged a complaint with the State Data Protection Inspectorate. Meanwhile, the defendant carried out the video surveillance in such a way that the occupants of the house did not have the choice of whether or not to enter the monitored area and were inevitably filmed against their will. The Supreme Court of Lithuania referred to the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union and stated that if a private person directs cameras to an area outside his/her private territory, for example to a public space or a common area, such as a staircase, such video surveillance is subject to stricter requirements – the same as for businesses or public authorities. Proportionality is one of the key requirements. This means that in order to achieve the objectives pursued, which in this case was the protection of the property, measures that are as little restrictive of the privacy of the occupants of the house as possible should be favoured. However, in this case, the occupant of the house who installed the cameras did not justify the need for the cameras, nor did he ensure that only areas belonging to himself were included in the field of surveillance. The court therefore ruled that he had violated the right to privacy of the other occupants of the building. It is important to note that the court did not state that CCTV cameras are an impermissible means to ensure the security of the house, but that the cameras must be used either with the consent of the residents or in such a way as not to infringe on the right to privacy of other residents.