# VG Berlin - 42 K 51.25

- Type: News
- Source: GDPRhub
- Date: 2026-08-18
- Original: https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=VG_Berlin_-_42_K_51.25
- Canonical: https://overview.legal/posts/291291
- Topics: Video Surveillance, Legitimate Interest, Monitoring, Supervisory Authorities, Video Surveillance, Personal Data

## Summary

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,

## 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

---
Generated by overview.legal · https://overview.legal/posts/291291 · 2026-08-22