Owner may not monitor other owners with the camera

The mere possibility of being captured by the neighbour's surveillance cameras may be unreasonable in a specific individual case.

On 28 February 2019, the Munich Local Court (Amtsgericht München) ordered the defendant to pay a fine of up to two hundred and fifty thousand euros.2019 ordered the defendant to refrain from monitoring the common areas of his condominium owners' association (WEG) in Munich-Berg am Laim with technical devices (video cameras, dash cams or other devices that are suitable for recording images and sound) upon avoidance of a fine of up to two hundred fifty thousand euros to be determined by the court for each case of infringement, or, in the event that this fine cannot be recovered, imprisonment for up to six months.

The case:

The plaintiff and the defendant are each owners of one flat of a WEG in Munich-Berg am Laim. On 10 July 2018, the defendant had installed a surveillance camera at a height of ten metres above the ground on the balcony of the flat belonging to him, which was directed towards the common areas of the communal garden. He removed the camera at the request of the co-owners, but did not sign a However, he did not sign a corresponding cease-and-desist declaration.

The defendant, who had declared before the court that it had been a mere the trial, the defendant stated that it was a camera device such as hunters would use. it was a camera device like those used by hunters. "It can be "You can attach it to a tree with a sling and point it at a fox's den, for example. and if something moves in the foxhole, the camera takes a picture. a picture." When asked by the court why, he explained that this had been an absolute nonsense. The distance to the community garden and the and the trees was about fifteen metres and the device could only be triggered at a distance of about if there was any movement there. The property had already been the ground floor had been broken into twice and his son had been robbed of two bicycles had been stolen from his son's nearby underground car park.

The plaintiff feels affected by these cameras. He does not want to be recorded when he is on common property. The defendant's application for approval of the surveillance camera had not even been put on the agenda of the owners' meeting in October 2018.

The decision:

The competent judge at the Munich Local Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff:

"Pursuant to § 14 No. 1 WEG (...) each condominium owner is obliged, to make use of the common property only in such a manner that none of the other flat owners suffers any disadvantage beyond that unavoidable for an orderly coexistence. In accordance with the case-law of the higher courts (...), the installation of a video camera installation of a video camera may well be covered by the owner's or condominium of the owner or condominium owner, but this only applies if the camera is exclusively is directed exclusively at areas and covers areas that belong to the special property of the of the respective owner. (...) 

In the installation of the Wildcam there was (...) an impairment, which exceeds the extent of what is permissible (...). (...) It is undisputed that the Wildcam the Wildcam was positioned in the direction of the communal garden. It is also not whether the Wildcam can only film at a distance of three metres or beyond. or beyond that. Case law regularly even considers it sufficient that sufficient that the presence of such a camera already interferes with the rights of the the rights of the persons concerned by the existence of such a camera. inadmissible surveillance pressure. This is to be agreed with, especially in particular against the background that it is not apparent to the co-owners, tenants and visitors whether and and visitors whether and when the camera is actually recording and recording. recording. Insofar as those concerned must seriously fear surveillance by such cameras cameras, there is already an encroachment on the right to privacy. right of personality. 

The necessary resolution of the community of owners was also lacking. community of owners.

"The court does not fail to recognise that the interest of the defendant is in interest is fundamentally understandable and, on the basis of the relevant explanations and, on the basis of the relevant explanations, there may well be an increased interest in security. However, this does not that the defendant is entitled, without any possibility of control by the community to monitor parts of the communal property without any possibility of control by the community. (...) 

In addition, the defendant specifically announced the intention of further surveillance measures in an email of 1.9.2018 (...). an email of 1.9.2018 (...) in which the defendant literally writes: "... literally writes: "... And who knows, maybe I will get a SpyCam after all". SpyCam".

Judgment of the Munich Local Court dated 28.02.2019, file number 484 C 18186/18 WEG

The judgement is now legally binding after the appeal was withdrawn

Source: Press release 38 of the Munich Local Court from 17.05.2019

Seal