In its ruling of 19.10.2016, the Berlin Regional Court (case reference: 35 O 200/14) ruled that surveillance of one’s own property is generally permissible.
Surveillance is only inadmissible if the camera is clearly only aimed at the neighboring property.
Violation of privacy through video surveillance of the neighbor
After a piece of lawn on a homeowner’s property was damaged, he installed two surveillance cameras on his house.
Although the camera was only directed at the homeowner’s property, his neighbor felt that his general right to privacy was being infringed.
He brought an action for injunctive relief and damages before the Berlin Regional Court.
Even before this lawsuit was filed, the neighboring relationship had already broken down, but the installation of the cameras was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Due to the type of installation and the external appearance of the video camera installation, it gives the neighbor the impression that the camera is recording his property, the living quarters and all persons passing by.
The burden of proof for prior infringement lies with the plaintiff
The regional court dismissed the neighbor’s claim on all points.
Although surveillance by means of a camera fundamentally violates the general right of personality pursuant to Art. 2 para.
1 in conjunction with. Art. 1 para.
1 GG in its manifestation as a fundamental right to informational self-determination.
However, a claim for injunctive relief by the affected neighbor is only permissible under the additional conditions of Section 1004 BGB by analogy:
“However, this claim presupposes that surveillance is actually taking place or that such surveillance is at least to be feared, because video surveillance that is limited to the private area of the person being monitored is generally permissible”
The neighbor did not succeed in proving that the video camera was aimed exclusively at his property.
There is no doubt that the neighbor cannot be observed when the cameras are set up as claimed by the homeowner, meaning that there is no violation of personal rights.
No positive forecast for the future
The neighbor was also unable to demonstrate at the trial that the camera had been positioned differently in the past.
The expert witness called in confirmed on the basis of photos that the camera position was the same then as it is now.
The screw connection on the camera had not changed during the entire period.
Video surveillance of your own property is permitted
Surveillance of one’s own property is still a well-known problem that the courts have to deal with time and again.
In principle, it is permissible to monitor your own property.
Nevertheless, special considerations of interests in individual cases may result in a claim for injunctive relief, even if the neighboring property is not recorded at all.
For example, if there are special circumstances that confirm that video surveillance of the neighbor is to be seriously expected in the future.