In judgment Areios Pagos 1992/2022, the Supreme Civil and Criminal Court (Areios Pagos) examined a defendant’s application for cassation against a judgment of the Single-Member Court of First Instance, by which he had been ordered to pay the plaintiffs the sum of 2,000 euros as pecuniary compensation for moral damages, on account of the infringement of their personal data.
The defendant and applicant for cassation, who lived on the floor above the plaintiffs, had installed two cameras: one outside the front door of his apartment and one at the shared main entrance of the building.
Background
The Single-Member Court of First Instance of Edessa, sitting as a court of appeal, dismissed the defendant’s appeal as unfounded on the merits and upheld the first-instance judgment of the Magistrate’s Court of Edessa, holding that:
“The plaintiffs and respondents in cassation reside in a first-floor apartment …, owned by the first of them (in which the second is hosted). Directly above the plaintiffs’ apartment, on the second floor, lives the defendant and applicant for cassation. Around January 2011, the latter, having electronics knowledge — as he had previously worked as a foreman at PPC (the Public Power Corporation) — proceeded to install two cameras, one outside the front door of his apartment and one at the shared main entrance of the building, while in 2012 he installed an additional one, in front of the area where his vehicle is parked, which ‘looks’ towards …, without obtaining the plaintiffs’ consent and without notifying the installation of the closed-circuit system and the commencement of its operation to the competent Hellenic Data Protection Authority (HDPA), as he should have, since this is a closed-circuit television system installed in a private space, by which, through the use of cameras, shared external areas are recorded and the defendant, owner of the system, is afforded the possibility of capturing images of third parties who use those areas freely in accordance with their purpose. He has, of course, posted informational stickers stating that the area is being recorded (‘CAUTION: this area is being recorded by closed-circuit television’).
As is established by the certification dated 2 October 2018 of F. Z. (‘…’), in January 2011 the certifier sold the defendant two cameras for use as a video door entry system, which were connected directly to the television, without recording function or recording equipment, while, as appears from his certification of 4 December 2018, the camera installed in 2012 outside and above the parking area was defective and was placed solely for the purpose of ‘deterring’ third parties (in order to discourage potential illegal acts), was not connected to power and was not connected to any equipment. However, the first of the above certifications concerns only the month of January 2011, without it being apparent whether any subsequent change occurred; likewise, the second concerns only the time the camera was installed. It was nevertheless established from the photograph of the parking area dated 21 November 2018 that the camera installed in that area has already been removed.
As regards the other two cameras, following the first plaintiff’s formal complaint of 10 September 2018 against the defendant, a lawful search was conducted at the home of the accused, in the context of a preliminary examination, from which it emerged that these cameras indeed function as a video door entry system, intended to identify the person ringing the bell at the building’s main entrance or at the door of the defendant’s home, and that they can display only a live image on the television set in his apartment, when the video function is activated through the television’s remote control, without any possibility of recording on any digital or magnetic medium (no such equipment was found). In view of these findings, the said complaint was dismissed by Order No 73/2019 of the Public Prosecutor at the Court of First Instance of Edessa. Consequently, the appellant’s argument that the equipment in question consists not of recording cameras but of a video door entry system is true.
Nevertheless, throughout the period during which the cameras were installed, vital aspects of the plaintiffs’ personality were affected, since the defendant had the ability to monitor their movements at any time and to capture their image on each occasion, without their consent. The personality of a person includes all goods inseparably connected to and pertaining to that person. One manifestation of the right to personality is the image of the person. The right to one’s own image is autonomous, even though it is connected with the right to one’s own freedom and the sphere of privacy. Thus, in accordance with Article 57 of the Civil Code (AK), the unconsented capture of a person’s image, in whole or in part, plastically or graphically, constitutes an unlawful infringement of personality, without it being further necessary that the photograph be presented or reproduced or made available to the public. And while it is true that it was not established, on the totality of the evidentiary material, that the defendant created and processed an archive of images and sound of the plaintiffs within the meaning of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of Law 2472/1997, nevertheless, the position and range of the system at issue, which permitted the capture of images from the shared area surrounding the residence (as its specific points have been set out above), without the plaintiffs’ consent, constitutes unlawful processing.”
The ruling of Areios Pagos
Areios Pagos held that the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied the provisions of Law 2472/1997, since the actions of the applicant for cassation constitute unlawful processing of the personal data of the respondents and are therefore unlawful and infringe their personality, with the consequence that the respondents suffer moral damages, worthy of redress through the award of pecuniary compensation. According to the substantive findings of the contested judgment, the applicant for cassation, by means of the cameras he installed, without the consent of the opposing parties and without authorisation from the competent authority, recorded, through closed-circuit television, and captured images of the respondents’ movements in the shared area surrounding their residence, which they used freely to enter or leave their home, and in this way had the ability to monitor their movements at any time, to capture their image on each occasion and to process it at will, without the respondents having consented to this, thereby intruding upon their personal data.
As specifically held:
“Furthermore, the Court of Appeal, on the findings set out above, did not deprive its contested judgment of a lawful basis, since it included therein the requisite reasoning, which corresponds to the factual content of the aforementioned substantive provisions and renders feasible cassation review of their correct application — provisions which it accordingly did not breach, even indirectly, since the judgment sets out, with clarity, sufficiency and without contradictions, the factual circumstances grounding its clearly formulated evidentiary conclusion, with the substantive findings supporting it (which are not subject to cassation review):
(a) that this concerns a closed-circuit television system installed in a private space, by which, through the use of cameras, shared external areas surrounding the building are recorded, functioning (without being so) as a video door entry system;
(b) that in this manner the applicant for cassation is afforded the ability to capture the image of third parties, in particular the respondents, who use the above areas freely in accordance with their purpose, thus monitoring their movements at any time, without their consent; and
(c) that the installation of the cameras in question placed the respondents under surveillance and unjustified restriction of their freedom, as a manifestation of the unhindered development of their personality, and obstructed them in the free development of their social activity, since the mere sense of being under surveillance was capable of influencing their behaviour.
The above ability to capture, by means of recording, the respondents’ image, without their consent, constitutes processing of their personal data within the meaning of the aforementioned provisions, and consequently the finding that the existence of recording equipment on a digital or magnetic medium was not established is irrelevant.
Therefore, the second part of the second ground and the third ground of the cassation application, based on Article 560(1) and (6) of the Code of Civil Procedure (KPolD), by which the applicant for cassation alleges that the contested judgment did not correctly interpret and apply the aforementioned substantive provisions and lacks a lawful basis, containing contradictory and insufficient reasoning, since it confuses the concept of installing a video door entry system in which the recording device is wholly absent with that of a recording-surveillance camera, are unfounded.
[…]
Furthermore, the applicant for cassation, by the third part of the second ground of his application, similarly attributes to the contested judgment the defect under Article 560(5) of the KPolD, alleging that the Court of Appeal, contrary to law, failed to take into account matters that had been put forward, and in particular failed to take into account the outcome of the formal complaint that the opposing parties had filed against him for violation of their personal data, which, by Order No 79/2019 of the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Misdemeanours of Edessa, was placed in the archive as unfounded, since it was held therein that the cameras in question function as a video door entry system in which absolutely no recording takes place and that no infringement of the opposing parties’ personal data occurs. This ground is inadmissible, since it refers to a defect in the contested judgment under Article 559(11) of the KPolD — namely, that it did not take into account evidence which the parties invoked and produced — a provision, however, which does not apply in the present case, since the contested judgment of the Court of First Instance was issued on appeal against a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court; in reality, under the pretext that the contested judgment fell into the alleged error, the applicant for cassation challenges its assessment of the evidence, which is not subject to review by Areios Pagos pursuant to Article 561(1) of the KPolD.”
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON VIDEO DOOR ENTRY SYSTEMS AND PERSONAL DATA VIOLATIONS
1. My neighbour has installed cameras — what can I do?
When a neighbour’s cameras or video door entry system capture images from shared areas that you use freely (the entrance of an apartment building, the corridor, the parking area), this gives rise to an infringement of personality and unlawful processing of personal data, in accordance with Articles 57 and 59 of the Civil Code (AK) and data protection legislation. Three parallel routes are available to you: a lawsuit before the Single-Member Court of First Instance for pecuniary compensation for moral damages and removal of the infringement; a complaint to the Hellenic Data Protection Authority (HDPA); and a formal complaint for unlawful surveillance. On the basis of Areios Pagos 1992/2022, you will succeed even if your neighbour claims that the system is merely a video door entry system without a recording device.
2. Am I entitled to compensation without proving that images were recorded?
Yes. Areios Pagos has held clearly that the very ability to capture your image, without your consent, constitutes unlawful processing of personal data. It is immaterial whether a recording device exists or whether the image is displayed only live on the neighbour’s television. It is sufficient that the position and range of the system permit the monitoring of your movements in the shared areas. The sense that you are under continuous surveillance is itself capable of influencing your behaviour and constitutes an unjustified restriction on the freedom to develop your personality. Pecuniary compensation is awarded at the court’s discretion based on the circumstances of each case.
3. How long does the court procedure take?
The lawsuit for infringement of personality is filed before the Single-Member Court of First Instance and, as a rule, the first-instance judgment is issued within twelve to twenty-four months of filing, depending on the court’s caseload. If the opposing party files an appeal, a further one to two years are added for the issuance of the appellate judgment. In parallel, the proceedings before the Hellenic Data Protection Authority (HDPA) are usually completed more swiftly and may lead to the imposition of a fine or an order to cease operation of the system. In urgent cases, interim measures may be sought for the immediate removal of the cameras, with a decision issued within a few weeks.
4. What documents and evidence do I need?
You will need photographs of the cameras from various angles, so that their position and range are recorded, as well as a video or floor plan of the area showing which shared spaces are covered. Any correspondence or extra-judicial notice by which you requested their removal — and the neighbour’s response or silence — is useful. The title deed and the building regulations document your status as a resident. In the case of a complaint to the Hellenic Data Protection Authority, the relevant decision or finding significantly strengthens the lawsuit. Any medical certifications attesting to anxiety or psychological burden contribute to the calculation of pecuniary compensation.
5. What are my chances of success?
The chances of success are particularly high where the camera or video door entry system demonstrably covers shared areas and the consent of all co-owners has not been obtained, nor has notification been given to the Hellenic Data Protection Authority. Case law, and in particular Areios Pagos 1992/2022, has established the position that the mere ability to capture images is sufficient to find an infringement. Even if a criminal complaint is placed in the archive because no recording is established, this does not prevent the success of the civil action, since the two procedures are judged on different criteria. The amount of pecuniary compensation depends on the duration and intensity of the infringement.
6. What is the role of the lawyer in such a case?
The lawyer first assesses whether the position and range of the cameras give rise to a violation, sets out the factual circumstances and selects the optimal strategy: extra-judicial notice, complaint to the Hellenic Data Protection Authority, application for interim measures, or a main lawsuit. They draft and file the lawsuit before the Single-Member Court of First Instance, represent the client at the hearing, refute arguments such as “this is merely a video door entry system” and substantiate the amount of moral damages. Our firm has handled cases of personal data violations in apartment buildings and is familiar both with the case law of Areios Pagos and the practice of the Hellenic Data Protection Authority, in order to secure the best possible outcome.