List of German judgments on video surveillance
The list of German judgments on video surveillance contains an overview of judgments by German courts on the subject of video surveillance .
| dish | Field of law | date | File number | Comments / quotations | source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Administrative court of Gelsenkirchen | Police law | 2018-10-23 | 14 K 3543/18 | The making of picture or sound recordings by the police at meetings is - regardless of whether they are only overview recordings - an inadmissible interference with the freedom of assembly, even if the pictures are only to be used for public relations purposes. | Full text |
| Federal Labor Court | Employment Law | 2018-08-23 | 2 AZR 133/18 | Legal action against termination based on stored data from video surveillance | < BAG press release > |
| District Court Munich I | Civil Law: Condominium Law | 2011-11-11 | 1 S 12752/11 | The video surveillance of the underground car park of a WEG violates the general privacy rights of apartment owners. Even if there have been thefts beforehand, the majority of the owners cannot decide on video surveillance. |
Full text summary (Haufe) summary (Czarnetzki) |
| VG Berlin | Right of assembly | 2010-07-05 | 1 K 905/09 | The fact that the police film a meeting without cause violates Article 8 of the Basic Law because of its intimidating effect . | Full text |
| VG Wiesbaden | Administrative law | 2010-01-20 | 6 K 1063 / 09.WI | The judicial public is not sufficiently guaranteed if there is a well-founded fear that those interested in attending court hearings will be prevented or deterred from attending public meetings due to the video surveillance and personal control in the building. | Full text |
| AG Munich | civil right | 2009-10-16 | 423 C 34037/08 | The video surveillance by a camera installed in the building entrance area (here: stairwell on the ground floor) of a rental property represents - regardless of whether the recordings are saved - a significant interference with the tenant's right to privacy and self-determination as well as his right of ownership of the rented apartment. | Full text |
| OVG Münster | Administrative law | 2009-05-08 | 16 A 3375/07 | The non-event-related storage of the data collected by the monitoring of the library of the Municipal Science Institute of the University of Münster with a video system is not permitted. | Full text |
| KG Berlin | civil right | 2008-08-04 | 8 U 83/08 | Even if vandalism has occurred in an elevator in a rental building, the owner of the house does not have the right to install a video camera in the elevator. | Full text |
| VG Münster | Administrative law | 2007-10-19 | 1 K 367/06 | The non-event-related storage of the data collected by the monitoring of the library of the Municipal Science Institute of the University of Münster with a video system is not permitted. | Full text |
| BAG | Employment Law | 2008-08-26 | 1 ABR 16/07 | Video surveillance of the interior is only permitted for a period of four weeks after the theft has occurred. The outside area may be permanently monitored if people are only there for a short time. | Full text |
| AG Hamburg | civil right | 2008-04-22 | 4 C 134/08 | Video surveillance of the common areas in a catering establishment is not permitted. | Full text |
| OLG Cologne | civil right | 2005-07-05 | 24 U 12/05 | The permanent, unrestricted and secret video surveillance of a communal laundry room is in principle not permitted despite previous damage to washing machines. |
NJW 2005, 2997, full text |
| BAG | Employment Law | 2004-06-29 | 1 ABR 21/03 | Permanent video surveillance of employees without specific suspicion is disproportionate. |
Press release Press release |
| AG Spandau | Tenancy law | 2004-01-06 | 5 C 557/03 | If homeowners install a surveillance camera in front of their house entrance, it must not capture the neighboring house. | Full text |
| AG middle | civil right | 2003-12-18 | 16 C 427/02 | It is only allowed to film the events in a narrow strip along the wall of the house. | Article full text (PDF; 821 kB) |
| LG Zweibrücken | Criminal procedural law | 2003-11-03 | Qs 10/03; Qs 11/03 | Video recordings made clandestinely to prove theft can be used as evidence in criminal proceedings if the entrepreneur was not able to investigate the matter by less drastic means. | NJW 2004, 85, full text |
| AG Gummersbach | 2003-08-21 | 10 a Gs 239/03 | 1. The data obtained through the use of an electronic toll collection system are subject to confiscation for the purpose of criminal prosecution under the conditions of §§ 100g , 100h StPO . 2. The data processing and utilization ban stipulated in the Autobahn Toll Act is to be interpreted restrictively in the light of Sections 100g , 100h StPO; a comprehensive prohibition of exploitation, including the general powers to intervene in criminal proceedings, cannot be derived from the Autobahn Toll Act. |
NJW 2003, 240 | |
| BAG | Employment Law | 2003-03-27 | 2 AZR 51/02 | Extraordinary termination on suspicion of embezzlement - permissibility of covert video surveillance | Full text |
| LAG Berlin | Employment Law | 2003-03-05 | 10 TaBV 2089/02 | The verdict of an arbitration board for the introduction of video surveillance in a Berlin mail distribution center of the Deutsche Post AG is ineffective. | Full text |
| AG Frankfurt am Main | Neighbor law | 2002-09-02 | 65 UR II 149/02 | All apartment owners must agree to the installation of a video surveillance system for the exclusive use of a special owner, as surveillance with a video camera in the entrance area encroaches on the privacy rights of the other owners. | NJW-RR 2003, 158 NZM 2003, 68 DSB 2003, 14 (red.Vahle) |
| VGH Munich | Trade law | 2002-07-31 | 22 B 02.965 | GewA 2002, 471 | |
| KG Berlin | Neighbor law | 2002-06-26 | 24 W 309/01 | If video surveillance is introduced in the entrance area of an apartment complex, with the recording being transmitted to the in-house cable network without technical restrictions, this violates the principles of proper administration. | RDV 2002, 237 NZM 2002, 702 NJW 2002, 2798 WuM 2002, 507 ZMR 2002, 846 MDR 2002, 1364 DuD 2002, 633 full text |
| BayObLG | Shoplifting | 2002-01-24 | 2 St RR 8/02 | A department store may monitor its customers with video cameras if the customer is informed at the entrance. | NJW 2002, 2893 |
| LAG Lower Saxony | Employment Law | 2001-12-19 | 6 Sa 1376/01 | juris (ArbN 3 / 02.26) | |
| LAG Kiel | Employment Law | 2001-12-04 | 1 Sa 392 b / 01 | juris | |
| Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court | Neighbor law | 2001-11-08 | 12 U 180/01 | Covert video surveillance to identify house residents as damaging a vehicle | VersR 2002, 590 |
| VG Göttingen | 2001-10-17 | 3 B 3157/01 | juris | ||
| VG Karlsruhe | Police law | 2001-10-10 | 11 K 191/01 | Video surveillance of public places in Baden-Württemberg permitted | NVwZ 2002, 117 NZM 2002, 135 VBlBW 2002, 131 DuD 2002, 430 (note Achelpöhler / Niehaus p. 731) VR 2002, 281 DSB 2002, 21 (red.Vahle) DVP 2002, 345 (note Vahle) full text |
| LAG Hamm | Employment Law | 2001-07-24 | 11 Sa 1524/00 | The boss is not allowed to secretly monitor his employees with a video camera. Any notice of termination issued as a result is ineffective. | RDV 2001, 288 DuD 2002, 108 DSB 2001, 21 ( red.Vahle ) EzA-SD 01 No. 21, 5 NZA-RR 2002, 464 ArbRB 2001, 68 (red.Lunk) full text |
| OLG Hamm | Procedural law | 2001-07-17 | 3 Ss 478/01 | StraFo 2001, 415 NStZ-RR 2002, 14 StV 2002, 187 |
|
| AG Dülmen | Criminal law | 2001-07-12 | 3 C 271/01 | NJW-RR 2002, 91 DSB 2002, 17 (red.Vahle) |
|
| LG Potsdam | Enforcement law | 2001-06-19 | 20 Vollz 40/01 | Research & Development 032, 104 | |
| Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court | civil right | 2001-06-01 | 14 U 255/00 | NJW-RR 2001, 1607 DAR 2001, 503 OLGR Düsseldorf 2002, 61 |
|
| AG Stuttgart | Criminal law | 2001-04-18 | 8 Cs 32 Js 616887/00 | Prohibition of exploitation after illegal video surveillance | unpublished (orig. file LDS-SH) full text |
| ArbG Frankfurt am Main | Employment Law | 2001-01-31 | 7 Ca 3997/00 | juris (SuP 2001, 539) | |
| OLG Hamm | Enforcement law | 2001-01-30 | 1 full number (Wz) 131/2000 | DuD 2002, 631 | |
| BGH | Procedural law | 2001-01-24 | 3 StR 324/00 | StV 2001, 216, full text |
|
| VG Leipzig | Police law | 2000-12-04 | 3 K 1737/00 | NVwZ 2001, 1317 NJW 2001, 389 (note Walter) DVP 2002, 388 (note Haurand) |
|
| LG Berlin | Tenancy law | 2000-10-31 | 65 S 279/00 | Tenants can request the dismantling of video surveillance cameras in the entrance area of the house because this could violate their personal rights. | ZMR 2001, 112 NZM 2001, 207 full text |
| OVG Münster | Police law | 2000-10-30 | 5 A 291/00 | DÖV 2001, 476 DSB 2001, 24 (red.Vahle) Krim 2001, 672 (red.Vahle), full text |
|
| ArbG Frankfurt am Main | Employment Law | 2000-09-26 | 18 ca 4036/00 | Employees who are monitored by video without permission may, under certain circumstances, demand compensation from their boss. | RDV 2001, 190 DSB 2001, 18 (red.Vahle) DVP 2002, 86 (note Vahle) full text |
| Munich Higher Regional Court | Procedural law | 2000-05-23 | 1 Ws 310/00 | StV 2000, 352 | |
| AG Schöneberg | Tenancy law | 2000-05-10 | 12 C 69/00 | ZMR 2000, 542 NZM 2000, 983 GE 2001, 184 (note nn) |
|
| BVerfG | Procedural law | 2000-03-09 | 2 BvR 1087/91 | Full text (decision not to accept the BGH of May 14, 1991) | |
| AG Schöneberg | Tenancy law | 2000-03-08 | 7 C 471/99 | ZMR 2000, 684 GE 2001, 211 |
|
| BayObLG | Criminal law | 2000-02-23 | 5 pcs RR 30/00 | Stinky fingers - transmitted via surveillance video - can offend a person | NJW 2000, 1584 full text |
| VG hall | Procedural law | 2000-01-17 | 3 B 121/99 | The mere video surveillance of a public place - in contrast to video recording - does not interfere with the constitutionally protected general personal right ( Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law). |
Guiding principle LKV 2000, 164 |
| BAG | Employment Law | 2000 | 2 AZR 51/02 | Covert video surveillance when there is justified suspicion | Guiding principle |
| LAG Stuttgart | Employment Law | 1999-05-06 | 12 Sa 115/97 | BB 1999, 1439 AuR 1999, 491 DVP 1999, 479 (note Vahle) DSB 1999, 14 (red.Vahle) |
|
| LG Darmstadt | Tenancy law | 1999-03-17 | 8 O 42/99 | NZM 2000, 360 | |
| LAG Cologne | 1999-02-16 | 11 Sa 795/98 | juris | ||
| OLG Schleswig | Neighbor law | 1998-10-16 | 1 U 194/97 | Video recordings with a security camera can be illegal if they interfere too much with the privacy of others. | Full text |
| Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court | Neighbor law | 1998-08-12 | 6 U 64/97 | WuM 2000, 128 OLGR Karlsruhe 1999, 83 |
|
| LG Braunschweig | Neighbor law | 1998-03-18 | 12 S 23/97 | NJW 1998, 2457 DVP 1999, 258 (Vahle's note) |
|
| BGH | Procedural law | 1998-01-29 | 1 StR 511/97 | The police are allowed to film the entrance area in front of a suspect's house with a video camera for long periods of time without interruption. | BGHSt 44, 13 StV 98, 169 NStZ 1998, 629 (note Amelung p. 631, Asbrock p. 632) NJW 1998, 1237 (note Gehrlein / Schübel 1999, 104) JA 1998, 539 JZ 1998, 794 (note. Rogall p. 796) DVP 1998, 263 (note nn) Krim 1998, 350 DuD 1998, 410 RDV 1998, 212 full text |
| Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court | Insurance law | 1997-11-28 | 4 U 141/96 | RuS 1998, 160 ZfSch 1998, 187 |
|
| LG Itzehoe | Neighbor law | 1997-09-11 | 7 (9) O 51/96 | SchlHA 1997, 262 | |
| LG Hamburg | Insurance law | 1997-04-29 | 309 S 276/96 | juris (NJWE-VHR 1997, 214) | |
| AG Wedding | Tenancy law | 1997-04-09 | 17 C 193/96 | WuM 1998, 342 | |
| LG Stuttgart | Procedural law | 1997-02-26 | 19 KLs 43/96 | unpublished (to BGHSt 44, 13) | |
| LG casting | 1996-11-15 | 1 p. 297/95 | A secret video that the husband made to record the marital misconduct of his wife may be used as evidence in divorce and custody proceedings. | Full text | |
| LAG Cologne | Employment Law | 1996-08-30 | 12 Sa 639/96 | BB 1997, 476 RDV 1997, 183 DuD 1998, 104 |
|
| BGH | Neighbor law | 1995-04-25 | VI ZR 272/94 | The production of portraits of a person, in particular the film recording with a video camera, can also constitute an inadmissible interference with the general personal rights of the person concerned in areas accessible to the public, for example on a public route, even if there is no intention to disseminate it. | NJW 1995, 1955 JZ 1995, 1115 (note Helle) DVP 1996, 85 (note nn) full text |
| AG Cologne | Tenancy law | 1994-12-20 | 208 C 57/94 | NJW-RR 1995, 1226 | |
| BAG | Employment Law | 1991-05-15 | 5 AZR 115/90 | BAGE 68, 52 | |
| BGH | Procedural law | 1991-05-14 | 1 StR 699/90 | NJW 1991, 2651 JuS 1992, 161 (note Amelung / Kerckhoff 1993, 196) NStZ 1992, 44 (note Rogall p. 45 + Schön p. 504) JR 1992, 316 (note Hippel / Weiß) BGHR § 160 para 1 StPO video surveillance 1 StV 91, 403 + 499 (note Gusy) NJW-CoR 1992, 26 (note nn) wistra 1991, 269 MDR 1991, 885 DÖV 1991, 849 CR 1992, 123 Jura 1992, 520 (note no. Wolter) RpflStud 1995, 99 (red. Frohn) |
|
| SG Munich | Ö / A | 1990-05-15 | S 40 AI 666/89 |
CR 1991, 417 RDV 1992, 85 |
|
| OVG Bremen | Right of assembly | 1990-04-24 | 1 BA 18/89 | NVwZ 1990, 1188 DVBl 1990, 1048 MDR 1990, 950 RDV 1990, 255 StV 1991, 123 |
|
| Regional Court of Nuremberg-Fürth | Procedural law | 1990-02-21 | 13 KLs 222 Js 2962/88 | unpublished (to BGH NJW 1991, 2651) | |
| LAG Frankfurt am Main | Employment Law | 1989-09-28 | 9 Sa 73/89 | juris (on BAGE 68, 52, see below) BB 1990, 1280 (guiding principle) |
|
| VG Berlin | Trade law | 1989-05-10 | 4 A 428.86 | GewA 1990, 61 | |
| LG Zweibrücken | Neighbor law | 1989-02-20 | 1 O 738/88 | MDR 1990, 549 | |
| VG Bremen | Right of assembly | 1988-12-05 | 4 A 226/86 |
NVwZ 1989, 895 Pol 1989, 202 DuR 1989, 332 |
|
| BVerwG | Ö / A | 1988-08-31 | 6 P 35/85 | A company television system (video system) used for covert observation of employees at the workplace is also a technical device intended to monitor the behavior or performance of employees within the meaning of Section 75 Paragraph 3 Number 17 BPersVG, even if its use only serves to clear up irregularities and it does not produce reproducible records. |
BVerwGE 1990, 61 ZBR 1989, 14 DVBl 1989, 200 NJW 1989, 848 RDV 1989, 80 |
| BAG | Employment Law | 1987-10-07 | 5 AZR 116/86 | 1. An employee's right to privacy may be violated if he is subjected to constant, seamless monitoring pressure in that the employer reserves the right to monitor the workplace at any time with hidden video cameras without specific notice. 2. A measure of the aforementioned type can, however, be justified if it is required by overriding legitimate interests of the employer. This requires a substantiated presentation. |
Full text AuR 87, 415 |
| Higher Regional Court Frankfurt am Main | Neighbor law | 1980-11-06 | 16 U 146/80 | An apartment owner is entitled to an injunction against roommates who photograph her and her visitors in order to present the photos in a legal dispute as evidence for the claim that the owner is engaged in prostitution in her apartment. | MDR 1981, 316 |
| AG Landshut | Violation of personal rights | 2019-11-29 | 1 C 28/19 | Lawsuit against video surveillance of the neighboring property with dome cameras
Configuration of the video surveillance: https://kamba4.crux.uberspace.de/de/?lat=48.5332848&lon=12.1392027&zoom=18
Default judgment of April 2nd, 2019: The defendants are sentenced to refrain from monitoring the property of the plaintiff FL No.xxx (xxx-Str. 16, 840xx Landshut) including its residential and ancillary buildings with video cameras.
|
unpublished |
