Judge: spinal cord injury patient does not have to remove camera for privacy of neighbors

A judge has ruled on appeal that a man with a spinal cord injury does not have to remove a camera from his home. Although the privacy of the neighbors is somewhat violated, this infringement, according to the judge, is not large enough for a ban.

The judge considered in his judgment that the safety of the man, because of his spinal cord injury, was important and that the camera captured what a mobile person could have seen when looking out his window. In addition, the fact that the camera was not aimed at the neighbours’ house, but at an important place, where other cameras had no view, also played a role.

In 2009 the man with the spinal cord injury placed four surveillance cameras on his own plot. Both his home and that of his neighbors can be reached via the same access road. One of the four installed cameras is placed on a corner of the house, through which the access road can also be seen. This means that the neighbors and their possible visitors also come into the picture when they go to and from their home.

The neighbors of the immobile spinal cord injury patient consider this an invasion of their privacy and in 2010 requested the man to remove the cameras. That was not heeded. Subsequently, the neighbors of the spinal cord injury patient went to court, demanding that the camera in question be removed within two days. The judge dismissed all claims, after which the neighbors appealed. They were also unsuccessful on appeal.

The judge ruled that violating privacy can constitute a tort, unless there is justification for the violation. Whether there is a justification must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, in which the seriousness of the infringement and the interests of the infringing party play a role, among other things. It is also taken into account whether the goal of greater security could also have been achieved by a less far-reaching means than placing a camera.

In its judgment, the judge stated that only a small part of the access road can be seen via the camera, and that the camera cannot be rotated, cannot zoom in and is not aimed at the home of the plaintiffs. Should this camera be removed, this part of the access road would be out of camera surveillance range, as the other three cameras are focused in different places. According to the judge, this would possibly give burglars the opportunity to enter the home of the paraplegic patient unseen via this part of the access road.

The judge considers the man’s sense of safety important and considers the neighbors’ claim that there has not been a burglary in a hundred years to be unimportant. In addition, the judge finds that the camera in fact only shows what would be visible to a mobile person with the naked eye, if the side windows of the house of the paraplegic patient were to look outside. Based on these findings, the court rules that the invasion of privacy is limited and not disproportionate. Because according to the judge there is sufficient justification for this violation of privacy, the interest of the man to see postmen and package deliverers via the camera was not discussed in this case.