Local Court Frankfurt am Main, 14.01.2015, Ref.: 33 C 3407/14
Whether video surveillance of the entrance area of a block of flats or other communal areas is permissible is still widely disputed.
It is generally accepted that a so-called video intercom system is permissible if it is ensured that only the tenant whose doorbell has been pressed can see the entrance area through the video system.
In the above-mentioned judgement of the Frankfurt am Main Local Court, the court had to deal with the question of whether the installation of so-called camera traps to deter thieves and vandals in a block of flats is permissible.
Introduction and Background of the Case
The plaintiff had rented a one-bedroom flat in Bad Vilbel from the defendant in 2007. In 2014, he noticed that mini cameras had been installed in the entrance area of houses 23 B and C. A notice posted by the defendant informed the residents that a surveillance system would be installed from July 2014 to ensure security and identify troublemakers. The plaintiff felt that the surveillance violated his right to privacy and sued to have the cameras removed.
Argumentation of the parties
The plaintiff argued that the installation of the cameras, even if they were only dummies, impaired his freedom of action and violated his right to privacy. The defendant's defence was that the cameras were not connected to recording devices and that no recordings were made. It claimed that the dummies had been installed to deter vandalism and break-ins, without being able to prove any specific incidents of vandalism.
Judgement of the Local Court of Frankfurt am Main
The Frankfurt am Main District Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff and decided that he was entitled to have the video cameras removed. The decision was based on Section 823 (1) BGB, Section 1004 (1) BGB and the general right of personality under Article 2 GG. The court clarified that even the installation of dummy cameras constitutes an infringement of personal rights. Even the mere threat of constant surveillance by dummies impaired the freedom of action of the plaintiff and his visitors.
Legal assessment and limits of the claim
The defendant was unable to present any special circumstances that would justify such surveillance. Although it had the right under Article 14 of the Basic Law to protect its property, it had not been proven that the installation of the cameras was necessary or suitable to prevent damage to its property. The defendant's general justification that the cameras served as a deterrent was not sufficient. However, the plaintiff was not entitled to have the cameras removed from the neighbouring house as he did not live there, nor was he entitled to have the camera mount removed.
Conclusion
The court found that both active cameras and dummies can violate the tenants' right to privacy if they are installed without a legitimate reason. In this case, the tenants' rights to personal freedom outweighed the landlord's property rights, as no specific dangers or damage were proven.
Source: Local Court of Frankfurt am Main
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.
Lawyers in Cologne provide advice and representation in tenancy law.