Administrative fine imposed for failure to comply with the decision
A property owner recorded his neighbours using video surveillance and sent the recordings to the police, even after the President of the Personal Data Protection Office, Mirosław Wróblewski, had ordered him to cease processing personal data through video surveillance extending beyond the boundaries of his property. The property owner now faces an administrative fine for failing to comply with that decision. The President of the Personal Data Protection Office also draws attention to the unlawful use of video surveillance as a means of resolving disputes between neighbours.
In September 2025, the President of the Personal Data Protection Office ordered a resident of a town in the Mazovia region to cease processing the personal data of one of his neighbours through video surveillance extending beyond the boundaries of his property and covering the complainants' property and a public road. The decision became final on 16 October 2025.
Correspondence, decisions and recordings
Following that date, in letters dated December 2025 and 7 January 2026, the neighbours informed the President of the Personal Data Protection Office that the person subject to the order had continued to operate a video surveillance system extending beyond the boundaries of his property and had therefore failed to comply with the order issued by the supervisory authority. The evidence was said to consist of recordings that he had submitted to the district police headquarters together with reports of road traffic offences.
The President of the Personal Data Protection Office requested information from the District Police Commander, asking whether the person subject to the order had submitted any such reports after 16 October 2025 (the date on which the decision became final) and whether he had attached any recordings or photographs obtained from the video surveillance system. The police confirmed that the reports had been submitted and provided the accompanying footage recorded by the surveillance cameras on 8 November and 9 December 2025. The first recording showed almost exclusively a public road, while the second showed both the public road and the complainants' property. Both recordings also captured images of the complainants.
The President of the Personal Data Protection Office also sent a letter to the person subject to the order, requesting that he provide explanations and submit evidence demonstrating compliance with the order previously issued.
In his response of 23 December 2025, the person subject to the order stated that he was not operating a video surveillance system covering the complainants' property and that the camera which was the subject of the complaint was directed exclusively at his own property. In support of his statement, he enclosed a recording and screenshots. Neither the complainants' property nor the public road was visible in the recording or the screenshots. He further stated that recordings made for the purpose of documenting criminal offences or minor offences allegedly committed by members of the complainants' family had been regularly deleted from the storage device after being provided to law enforcement authorities. He also explained that the video surveillance system had been installed in response to acts allegedly committed by the complainants to the detriment of him and his family.
“Incidental Nature”
In February 2026, the President of the Personal Data Protection Office requested that the man provide further explanations and evidence of the measures taken to comply with the supervisory authority's earlier decision. He was also asked to explain the discrepancy between his statement submitted in December, in which he declared that “I do not operate a video surveillance system covering your property […]”, and the fact that he had provided the police with recordings made after the decision had become final.
In his response dated 14 February 2026, the person subject to the order stated that “all video surveillance devices currently operating on my property cover only areas within the boundaries of my property”. He also submitted printouts showing the areas covered by the video surveillance system. With regard to the recordings provided to the police, he maintained that they were “incidental in nature and were made only in situations involving incidents that could constitute a criminal offence or a minor offence”. He further explained that he had acted in the belief “that such conduct was permitted under applicable law, particularly in light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 11 December 2014 in Case C-212/13 (Ryneš), which indicated that private video surveillance may cover part of a public area where necessary to protect the controller's rights, particularly the protection of property and security”.
Following a further exchange of correspondence and explanations, it emerged that, after 13 January 2026, the person subject to the order had submitted two reports to the police, accompanied by recordings as evidence. The District Police Commander provided the President of the Personal Data Protection Office with nine recordings attached to those reports. One of the recordings, dated 7 January 2026, showed both a public road and the complainants' property. This demonstrated that, as late as January 2026, the man was still using the rotating camera's functionality, which allowed it to be directed beyond the boundaries of his property. According to his statement, the camera was not replaced with a fixed camera until March 2026.
An effective, proportionate and dissuasive administrative fine
As the man had failed to comply with the order, the President of the Personal Data Protection Office initiated administrative proceedings against him on his own initiative. Having examined all the evidence gathered during the proceedings, the President of the Personal Data Protection Office pointed out that, as a controller, the man was required to comply with the principle of accountability (Article 5(2) GDPR) and was responsible for ensuring that personal data were processed lawfully. He was therefore required to be able to demonstrate compliance with these principles. The application of the accountability principle in this case meant that the owner of the property on which the video surveillance system was operated was required to bring his processing of personal data into compliance with the law and subsequently demonstrate, in the proceedings before the President of the Personal Data Protection Office, that he had complied with the order issued in the decision.
The President of the Personal Data Protection Office also found that, although the man had ultimately complied with the decision, he had failed to comply with the order during the period between the date on which the decision became final (16 October 2025) and the date on which he eventually complied with it (March 2026). In the opinion of the President of the Personal Data Protection Office, the circumstances of the case justified the imposition of an administrative fine. The fine was set at PLN 1,470 which the President of the Personal Data Protection Office considered to be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Private Video Surveillance – Applicable Rules
The President of the Personal Data Protection Office, Mirosław Wróblewski, draws attention to the widespread unlawful use of so-called "private video surveillance", or its use in a manner that does not comply with GDPR. Such surveillance is often used not as a means of protecting the life, health or property of the person operating the system, but rather as a tool for resolving disputes between neighbours. Decisions issued by the President of UODO ordering controllers to bring such processing of personal data into compliance with the GDPR are sometimes ignored by those operating video surveillance systems. Orders issued by the President of UODO are also sometimes complied with only partially or merely ostensibly. There are also cases in which controllers resume the unlawful processing of their neighbours' or other individuals' personal data through video surveillance. In this context, the administrative fine imposed in the present case should have a general deterrent effect, while remaining proportionate to the specific circumstances of the case and the controller concerned. It should serve as a reminder to controllers and processors that failure to comply with an order issued by a supervisory authority may also result in financial fines.
The issue of video surveillance involving neighbouring properties has previously been examined by the President of UODO in another case that resulted in the imposition of an administrative fine. Further information is available at: https://uodo.gov.pl/en/553/2231.
Decision in Polish: DKE.561.5.2026