Order — ECLI:EU:C:2020:104
Date: 2020-02-13
Language of the case: Romanian

Summary C-708/18 — 1 
Case C-708/18 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged:  
6 November 2018 
Referring court: 
Tribunalul Bucureşti (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
2 October 2018 
Applicant: 
TK 
Defendant: 
Asociaţia de Proprietari bloc M5A Scara A 
  
Subject-matter of the main proceedings 
Action by which the applicant, TK, asks Tribunalul Bucureşti (Regional Court, 
Bucharest) to find that the defendant, Asociaţia de Proprietari bloc M5A Scara A 
(Association of co-owners of building M5A, staircase A, ‘the Association of co-
owners’), has infringed his right to privacy and to require the latter to bring the 
infringement to an end. 
Subject-matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Pursuant to Article 267 of the TFEU, the referring court requests interpretation of 
Articles 8 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 
and Articles 6(1)(e) and 7(f) of Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of 
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-708/18 
 
2  
Questions referred 
1. Are Articles 8 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union and Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46/EC, on the protection of individuals 
with regard to the processing of personal data, to be interpreted as precluding a 
provision of national law such as that at issue in the main proceedings, namely 
Article 5(2) of Law No 677/2001, and Article 6 of Decision No 52/2012 of the 
ANSPDCP (Autoritatea Națională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu 
Caracter Personal, the National Authority for the Supervision of the Processing of 
Personal Data), in accordance with which video surveillance may be used to 
ensure the safety and protection of individuals, property and valuables and for the 
pursuit of legitimate interests, without the consent of the person concerned? 
2. Are Articles 8 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union to be interpreted as meaning that the limitation of rights and freedoms 
which results from video surveillance is in accordance with the principle of 
proportionality, satisfies the requirement of being necessary and meets objectives 
of general interest or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others, where 
the controller is able to take other measures to protect the legitimate interest in 
question? 
3. Is Article 7(f) of Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with 
regard to the processing of personal data to be interpreted as meaning that the 
‘legitimate interests’ of the controller must be proven, present and effective at the 
time of the data processing?  
4. Is Article 6(1)(e) of Directive 95/46/EC on the protection of individuals with 
regard to the processing of personal data to be interpreted as meaning that data 
processing (video surveillance) is excessive or inappropriate where the controller 
is able to take other measures to protect the legitimate interest in question? 
Provisions of EU law cited 
Article 267 TFEU. 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391), in 
particular Articles 8 and 52 thereof. 
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 
1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal 
data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31), in particular 
Articles 6(1)(e) and 7(f).  
Provisions of national law cited 
Codul civil (the Civil Code), adopted by Law No 287/2009, published in 
Monitorul Oficial, Part I, No 505 of 15 July 2011, as amended and supplemented, 
ASOCIAŢIA DE PROPRIETARI BLOC M5A SCARA A 
 
3 
in particular Article 253 (on the protection of non-material rights), which provides 
that individuals whose rights have been infringed may seek an injunction to 
prevent the commission of an imminent infringement, an order requiring the 
cessation of a current infringement and prohibiting that infringement in the future, 
or a declaration of unlawfulness regarding an act that has been committed, 
together with the compensation of material damage. 
Decizia Autorităţii Naţionale de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter 
Personal nr. 52/2012 privind prelucrarea datelor cu caracter personal prin 
utilizarea mijloacelor de supraveghere video (Decision No 52/2012 of the 
National Authority for the Supervision of the Processing of Personal Data 
concerning the processing of personal data through the use of video surveillance 
systems), repealed by Decision No 99/2018, in particular Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 
thereof. 
Legea nr. 677/2001 pentru protecţia persoanelor cu privire la prelucrarea datelor 
cu caracter personal şi libera circulaţie a acestor date (Law No 677/2001 on the 
protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the 
free movement of such data), which transposed into national law Directive 95/46, 
published in the Monitorul Oficial, Part I, no 790, of 12 December 2001, amended 
by Law No 102/2005 and the OUG (Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului 
(Government Emergency Order)) No 36/2007, in particular Articles 5 and 14 
thereof. 
Among the purposes for which video surveillance is permitted, Decision 
No 52/2012 mentions the prevention and combating of crime (Article 4(a)) and 
ensuring the safety and protection of individuals, property, valuables, and public 
utility buildings and plants together with their enclosures (Article 4(c)). It is 
specified that video surveillance may be carried out in places and areas open to or 
intended for the public, including public access ways in the public or private 
domain, under the conditions laid down by law. 
Both Law No 677/2001 and Decision No 52/2012 provide that the processing of 
personal data is to be carried out with the express and unambiguous consent of the 
person concerned. Exceptions to the express consent rule include the case where 
processing is necessary to protect the life, physical integrity or health of the 
person concerned or of other individuals exposed to danger. 
 Brief outline of the facts and the main proceedings 
1 The defendant, the Association of co-owners, installed a video surveillance system 
in the common parts of the apartment building in which the applicant lives, 
following the adoption of a decision by the general assembly of the Association of 
co-owners of 7 April 2016, which was adopted by a unanimity of votes of those 
present. The applicant, TK, was himself one of the co-owners who consented to 
the installation of the video surveillance system. The system included three video 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-708/18 
 
4  
surveillance cameras, one outside the entrance to the building, one in the ground-
floor entrance hall and one in the lift. 
2 Initially, the video images were processed without the defendant’s being 
registered as a data controller, but subsequently, on 21 October 2016, all the data 
thus obtained was erased at the defendant’s request following the applicant’s 
complaints that he no longer consented to the installation of the surveillance 
system. On 18 May 2017, minutes were taken with a specialist company in which 
it was recorded that, at the request of the Association of co-owners, the three 
video cameras had been taken down and deposited with the specialist company. 
3 Subsequently, the defendant took the necessary steps to obtain registration as a 
data controller in accordance with Law No 677/2001 and, once registered, refused 
to dismantle the components of the video-image recording system. 
4 By the application lodged with the referring court, the applicant, TK, seeks a 
declaration that the defendant has infringed his right to privacy and an injunction 
requiring it to remove the video surveillance cameras installed in the common 
parts of the building in which he resides. He asks that the entire video surveillance 
system be taken out of operation, failing which the defendant must pay a civil 
fine. By an additional application he also seeks an order requiring the defendant to 
pay the sum of RON 1 in non-material damages. 
The main arguments of the parties  
5 The applicant alleges infringement of his right to privacy. He maintains that, 
although the defendant has confirmed in writing that it complied with his request 
and that the entire video system was de-activated within the five months following 
21 October 2016 (the date on which the video system is said to have been 
completely disabled), the video surveillance system is still in place. 
6 The defendant states that it had set about installing a number of cameras in good 
faith, transparently and with good intentions, in order to protect the M5A building 
as effectively as possible. Over time, there have been numerous events that have 
led it to take increasingly restrictive measures to protect against the commission of 
crimes such as theft, destruction and the unauthorised entry into the property of 
persons who do not live there. 
7 Thus, in 2000, the defendant had installed an intercom/magnetic card entry system 
in order to provide more efficient control over who enters and leaves the building. 
In 20[1]4 the lift was replaced, but it was soon vandalized repeatedly, 
necessitating technical intervention on the part of the service provider, each 
intervention occasioning additional costs for the Association of co-owners. 
8 All of that, together the express request of some of the co-owners of the M5A 
building, led the defendant to take account of the suggestions of certain security 
bodies (including the police) and decide to install the cameras. 
ASOCIAŢIA DE PROPRIETARI BLOC M5A SCARA A 
 
5 
Summary of the reasons for the request for a preliminary ruling 
9 The referring court observes that under Article 5 of Law No 677/2001, the general 
rule is that any processing of personal data, such as the video-image recording 
carried out by the defendant using the building’s video surveillance system, may 
only be carried out if the person concerned has expressly and unequivocally 
consented to that data processing. 
10 However, paragraph 2 of the same article lays down a series of exceptions where 
the data subject’s consent is not required, and these include the case where the 
processing is necessary to protect the life, physical integrity or health of the 
person concerned or of another individual exposed to danger. 
11 Given that the situations governed by Article 7 of Directive 95/46, in which 
personal data may be processed by a controller without the consent of the data 
subject, do not include, as such, the situation in which the data processing is 
necessary in order to protect the life, physical integrity or health of the person 
concerned or of another individual exposed to danger, the question arises of a 
possible conflict between the national provisions and the provisions of Directive 
95/46. 
12 The referring court also makes reference to the provisions of Article 52(1) and (3) 
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which establishes 
the principle of the proportionality of the interference with the exercise of the 
rights and freedoms of citizens. 
13 In that connection, the referring court points out that in its judgment of 17 July 
2003, Perry v. The United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights 
(ECtHR) ruled that the normal use of security cameras, both in the streets and in 
public places such as shopping centres or police stations, serves legitimate and 
foreseeable purposes and thus does not raise issues of infringement of Article 8. 
14 However, the ECtHR held that, in the case in question, the police had set up the 
camera in order to obtain clear images of the applicant and that they had used 
those images in a montage which was shown to witnesses so that they could 
identify the author of certain offences. Regardless of whether the applicant knew 
of the existence of that video surveillance camera, there was nothing to indicate 
that he could have expected to be specifically filmed by the camera. 
Consequently, the images were not taken in the normal way that cameras are used 
and there was no consent on the part of the person filmed. There was, therefore, an 
interference in the applicant’s private life. Given that even the national court 
considered that the measure was not provided for by United Kingdom legislation, 
the ECtHR found that the interference had no legal basis in national law, and that 
Article 8 had, therefore, been infringed. 
15 Tribunalul București (Regional Court, Bucharest) observes that, although the 
applicant initially agreed to the installation of the video recording system and 
subsequently withdrew his consent to the processing of the data resulting from the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-708/18 
 
6  
video recording carried out by the defendant, the video surveillance system did 
not appear to have been used in a manner or for a purpose that goes beyond the 
objective stated by the defendant, namely to protect the life, physical integrity and 
health of the persons concerned, that is to say the co-owners of the building in 
which the video surveillance system was installed. 
16 It therefore considers it necessary to make a reference to the Court of Justice for 
interpretation of the abovementioned provisions of EU law, so that the applicant’s 
right to private and family life is not fundamentally undermined by the installation 
of the video surveillance system and by the data processing which was carried out 
by the defendant once it had completed the formalities for acquiring the status of 
data controller.