Community of property owners and surveillance cameras
Recently, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on 10/30/2024, endorsing the right of a community of property owners to install surveillance cameras in common areas, including hallways. This decision was based on previous incidents that affected the residents, leading the community to take measures to protect the security of people and their property.
The conflict between fundamental rights
In such cases, two fundamental rights must be balanced: the right to privacy and the right to security. According to legal doctrine, no fundamental right is unlimited, and its exercise may be restricted under certain conditions when other fundamental rights are at stake.
In this case, the cameras were installed on each floor of the building and pointed toward the doors of individual apartments. The decision by the property owners’ association was adopted by majority vote, complying with the legal requirements outlined in Article 17.3 of the Horizontal Property Law. Moreover, it was justified by the need to prevent acts of vandalism that had previously occurred.
Privacy safeguards
The community implemented several privacy safeguards, such as limiting access to the recordings to authorized personnel (technicians or administrators) and retaining the footage for a maximum of 30 days. These measures were crucial to justify the proportionality of the action.
In fact, the complainant had previously filed a claim with the Spanish Data Protection Agency, which was dismissed. According to the agency, the cameras complied with legal requirements: informational signs were in place, no footage of public streets or private interiors was recorded, and the recordings adhered to applicable regulations.
The Supreme Court’s stance
The Supreme Court upheld the property owners’ association’s decision as a sufficient legal basis to justify the installation of the cameras. According to the ruling, the cameras only captured footage of the building’s common areas, and the community fulfilled all legal requirements to adopt this measure.
Justice Rafael Sarazá, who authored the opinion, noted that while the installation of cameras may affect the right to privacy, this impact was limited and proportionate. The court deemed the measure justified by the legitimate aim of protecting the safety of residents and their property.
Impact on the right to privacy
According to the Constitutional Court’s doctrine, the right to privacy is not absolute. In a building governed by horizontal property laws, it is common knowledge who enters the building and even which apartments they visit. For example, it is widely accepted that a concierge can know who enters the building and where they go, or that a peephole on a neighbor’s door does not violate privacy.
In this regard, the Supreme Court argued that banning cameras would be as excessive as prohibiting a concierge service or peepholes in doors. These limitations on the right to privacy align with social norms recognized under Article 2.1 of the Organic Law 1/1982, May 5.
Proportionality of the measure
The ruling emphasized the principle of proportionality. The Supreme Court considered the installation of surveillance cameras an appropriate measure to protect the safety of residents and their property. Additionally, the court found the measure reasonably justified due to prior vandalism incidents in the building.
Actions taken by the community
The proportionality of the measure was reinforced by the following actions:
- Restricting access to recordings to authorized personnel (technician or administrator).
- Limiting the retention of footage to a maximum of 30 days.
- Posting informational signs in the building’s common areas.
- Excluding footage of public streets or the interiors of private residences.
These actions demonstrated that the community acted within the legal framework, balancing security needs with the protection of residents’ privacy.
Ruling conclusions
The Supreme Court concluded that the impact on the personal and family privacy of residents was limited and proportionate. Moreover, the measure was adopted transparently and with the knowledge of all property owners.
Justice Sarazá stated that the installation of surveillance cameras in common areas is compatible with respect for fundamental rights, provided it is implemented with the necessary safeguards. In this case, the property owners’ association complied with all legal and social requirements to justify the measure.
Relevance for other communities
This ruling establishes an important precedent for other property owners’ associations facing similar issues. Installing surveillance cameras can be an effective tool for ensuring safety, provided fundamental rights are respected and actions comply with applicable regulations.
If you need more information about regulations applicable to property owners’ associations, feel free to consult our article on regulations for property owners’ associations.
Carlos Baño Lawyers
At Carlos Baño Lawyers, we specialize in property law and horizontal property regulations. If you need advice on drafting statutes, interpreting regulations, or resolving conflicts related to property matters, we are here to help.
Contact us via our website or visit our offices in Alicante. Our team of professionals will provide personalized and effective solutions. Find us in Google Maps.
