Enforcement · National Commission for Data Protection (CNPD) 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.

LUXEMBOURG DPA: Non-compliance with general data processing principles

€7,200 Fine
Unknown
LUXEMBOURG
Art. 5 GDPR Art. 13 GDPR Art. 32 GDPR
Video Surveillance Employees Storage Limitation Monitoring IP Address Accountability Controllers Processing Agreement
Jun 11, 2021 Source

How it connects

Related across sources

Guidance Art. 29 WP Guidelines on GDPR transparency requirements (WP260 rev.01) EDPB News Danish SA Declares Use of Google Analytics Unlawful Without Supplementary Measures Datatilsynet Literature GDPR Implementation Series ∙ Hungary: Introduction to the GDPR Application and a Brief History of Data Protection European Data Protection Law Review Literature GDPR Implementation Series ∙ Romania: Overview of the GDPR Implementation European Data Protection Law Review Literature GDPR Implementation Series ∙ Netherlands: The GDPR Implementation Act European Data Protection Law Review Literature GDPR Implementation Series ∙ United Kingdom: Heading Towards Brexit but with a Data Protection Bill Implementing GDPR European Data Protection Law Review

Full text

The DPA from Luxembourg (CNPD) has imposed a fine of EUR 7,200 on a company. The company had installed a video surveillance system to protect the company's assets, prevent intrusion by unauthorized persons and prevent accidents. However, the cameras also captured parts of an employee's work area and the smoking area that employees frequently used. Furthermore, the controller had installed location sensors on the cars in its fleet. This was intended to optimize the company's operations. The DPA finds that the recording of employees was not necessary to ensure the purposes associated with the video surveillance and was therefore disproportionate. The DPA states that the controller thus violated the principle of data minimization under Article 5 (1) c) of the GDPR. The location data collected by the controller was stored for a period of eight months, although this would not have been necessary for the purposes of the processing. The DPA considered this to be a violation of the principle of data retention. Furthermore, the DPA found a violation of the information obligations set out in Art. 13 GDPR. Finally, the DPA found a violation of Art. 32 (1) GDPR. All persons who had authorized access to the software via which the locations could be tracked used the same account and not an individual account.

Industry: Employment

Original document at the source cnpd.public.lu

Similar Content