The Higher Administrative Court (OVG) Berlin‑Brandenburg has ruled on video surveillance in the Berlin S‑Bahn: No, not necessarily. This judgment (of May 13, 2025 – OVG 12 B 14/23) has far‑reaching significance for all companies that use video surveillance.
The Case: Passenger Demands Video Copy of S‑Bahn Journey
A passenger demanded that S‑Bahn Berlin GmbH provide a copy of the video recordings of his journey, invoking his right of access under Article 15(3) GDPR. S‑Bahn refused and referred to its data protection concept, which had been coordinated with the Berlin data protection authority.
OVG Decision: Data Protection Concept Trumps Individual Right to a Copy
The court upheld S‑Bahn’s decision. Although the video recordings are personal data, the company’s data protection concept justifies refusing to provide a copy. The concept provides that:
• Recordings are not viewed internally.
• Disclosure only occurs to law‑enforcement authorities.
• Deletion occurs automatically after 48 hours.
The court argued that this concept best protects the privacy rights of all passengers. The interest of an individual passenger in obtaining a copy must take a back seat—especially since he had already been informed, under Article 15(1) GDPR, about the manner of the data processing.
Implications for Companies: Why This Ruling Matters
The power of a data protection concept: A well‑thought‑out and ideally supervisory‑authority‑aligned data protection concept for video surveillance is a strong legal argument. It can limit obligations arising from the right to obtain a copy.
Protection of third‑party rights: The judgment emphasizes that the rights of other persons also visible in the footage must be protected. Providing a copy would infringe those rights.
Difference between information and copy: Companies must inform about the video surveillance (Art. 15(1) GDPR). They are not obliged in every case to provide a copy of the recordings (Art. 15(3) GDPR).
Need for clear rules: Companies that use video surveillance (e.g., in retail, office buildings, or parking lots) need clear, documented rules for access, retention period, and deletion of recordings.
FAQ: Video Surveillance & GDPR – What You Need to Know
Must I always give customers a copy of video footage? No. This judgment shows that the right to a copy can be restricted, particularly where third‑party rights or a consistent data protection concept stand in the way.
What belongs in a data protection concept for video surveillance? It should define the purpose of surveillance, exact storage locations, retention period, clear deletion deadlines, and strict access rules.
How long may I store video recordings? As briefly as possible and only as long as necessary for the purpose (e.g., investigating crimes). 48–72 hours is often a benchmark, but this may vary depending on justification.
What is the difference between access (Art. 15(1)) and copy (Art. 15(3))? Access concerns general information about the processing (purposes, duration, etc.). The copy concerns the personal data themselves.
Conclusion: Legal Certainty for Companies Using Video Surveillance Strengthened
The OVG Berlin‑Brandenburg ruling provides greater legal certainty for companies. It shows that a proactive, well‑documented data protection approach is not only an obligation but also an effective means of fending off unfounded demands and safeguarding the rights of all parties involved.
