News · GDPRhub EN LLM context A cited markdown file you can paste into your AI assistant (ChatGPT, Claude, a RAG or project knowledge base) to ground it in this document. Contains: this document’s text, its sections with their topics, and the full text of every law provision it applies. Everything links back to its source on overview.legal — legal information, not advice.

VG Berlin - 42 K 51.25

Video Surveillance Legitimate Interest Monitoring Supervisory Authorities Video Surveillance Personal Data
Aug 18, 2026 Source

How it connects

Related across sources

Enforcement AZOP (Croatia) - Decision 08-03-2022 (energy company) AZOP (Croatia) Case Law Bulgarian SAC upholds DPA finding on neighbour's CCTV covering adjacent property Supreme Administrative Court of Bulgaria‎ Case Law Sibiu Tribunal: CNCF denied CCTV access request; court rules on immaterial damage claim Sibiu Tribunal Guidance Art. 29 WP Guidelines on GDPR transparency requirements (WP260 rev.01) EDPB Literature Human Resources and GDPR Compliance: Lessons from Romanian Data Protection Case Law on Workplace Privacy Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence Literature Tracing the Impact of GDPR on Global Data Privacy International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)

Full text

English Summary The data subject appealed the DPA decision in April 2025. He argued that there was no particular threat that would justify the installation of a video surveillance system. According to the data subject, an on-site investigation carried out by the Berlin police supported this view.The data subject appealed the DPA decision in April 2025. He argued that there was no particular threat that would justify the installation of a video surveillance system. According to the data subject, an on-site investigation carried out by the Berlin police supported this view. Holding. Holding The court dismissed the data subject's appeal. It held that the DPA had fulfilled its obligation under Article 57(1)(f) GDPR and investigated the complaint to an appropriate extent. In addition, the court held that the video surveillance was lawful under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR.The court dismissed the data subject's appeal. It held that the DPA had fulfilled its obligation under Article 57(1)(f

Original document at the source gdprhub.eu

Similar Content