Guiding principle
Limited video surveillance, related to one's own special area of use, without other owners being affected in any way, is permissible (Hamburg District Court – Blankenese, judgment of January 9, 2013, – 539 C 7/14).
The case:
In a two-party condominium ownership community, the defendant had installed a door and a garden camera. The parties argued about which area of the special and common property was recorded by the camera. The defendant claims that the surveillance cameras were installed for her own protection, that they are directed exclusively at the keyhole of the front door, that the other camera in the garden monitors the garage lock, and that no other persons or areas are filmed.
The defendant is ordered to remove the surveillance cameras, or alternatively to refrain from surveillance.
The judgment:
The claim is to be dismissed in the main application (removal), the Hamburg-Blankenese District Court ruled. Removal of the surveillance camera is out of the question because it is up to the defendant whether she wants to remove it or restrict it in some other way. The defendant cannot be held liable for omission either, as there is no risk of repetition. The fact that at most a minimal area of the plaintiffs' special use area was also recorded does not speak in favor of a risk of repetition. Restricted video surveillance, related to one's own special use area, is permissible. Precise observation of others – at least with this camera – is not technically possible.
Practical tip:
The judgment of the Hamburg-Blankenese District Court is based largely on the absence of a risk of repetition. It is indeed difficult to justify rejecting this in the present case, since it always encroaches on the right of the individual to informational self-determination, inter alia, BVerfG, decision of August 11, 2009, - 2 BvR 941/08 -.
The Federal Court of Justice had already ruled in 2013 that that video surveillance of the common property is possible if it takes place under the direction and supervision of the "community" and a legitimate, specific and binding community interest outweighs the interest of the individual, BGH, judgment of May 24, 2013, IV ZR 220/12-.
In the context of a WEG, which may be located in Bonn, for example, the individual should also always make sure whether the installation of a video camera and any associated visual change constitutes a structural change.
The statements represent initial information that was current for the law applicable in Germany at the time of initial publication. The legal situation may have changed since then. Furthermore, the information provided cannot replace individual advice on a specific matter. Please contact us for this purpose.