The Spanish authority has archived a procedure concerning a video surveillance camera installed by a private individual, considering that no infringement affecting the essential content of the right to data protection was established, notably due to a context of neighborhood conflict and the removal of the device.

Facts and context

The Spanish data protection authority (AEPD) published a decision ordering the archiving of a procedure initiated against a private individual for alleged breaches related to the installation of a video surveillance camera and the sharing of images in a messaging group.

The case originated from a complaint filed by a private individual on March 1, 2025, concerning a camera installed on the facade of their neighbor which, according to them, filmed the access path and entrance to their home, and whose images were allegedly shared in an instant messaging group.

Reasons for the decision

The authority analyzed the facts in light of a potential violation of the data minimization principle.

• Data minimization obligation (Article 5(1)(c) of the GDPR): The sanction procedure was opened on January 10, 2026, considering that the installation of a camera directed towards an area outside the private property and the dissemination of images in a messaging group could constitute a violation of the minimization principle. However, after investigation, the authority considered that no infringement of the essential content of the right to data protection was proven. It took into account the context of neighborhood conflict, the security justifications of the person concerned (attempted intrusion), the fact that the shared image was taken by a phone and not the camera, and especially the removal of the device, rendering the continuation of the procedure irrelevant.

Authority's decision

Consequently, the authority ordered the archiving of the procedure, not considering an administrative infringement in data protection to be established.

Lessons learned

This decision recalls that:

• The context of processing, notably a neighborhood conflict or security imperatives, must be taken into account to assess the proportionality of a video surveillance measure and the seriousness of a possible infringement.
• The right to data protection is not absolute and must be balanced with other fundamental rights, such as the right to security and property protection, especially when malicious acts are suspected.
• The use of cameras to collect evidence of uncivil or criminal acts may be deemed legitimate, provided that the collected images are exclusively handed over to competent authorities and not disseminated on private channels.
• The prompt cessation of the contested processing, such as the removal of a camera, is a determining factor that the supervisory authority considers when deciding the outcome of a procedure, which may lead to its archiving.