Bailiffs ordered Prikamets to dismantle the camera, which was used to monitor neighbors

A resident of the Osinsky district of the Perm Territory complained to the court about the violation of the right to privacy. The reason for the dispute was a video surveillance camera installed by a neighbor on the border of the sites.

During the trial, it was found that the owner of one of the land plots placed a video camera on an adjacent fence. The device had a rotary mechanism up to 180 degrees, recorded and stored data for one to two weeks, and the broadcast went directly to the phone owner. At the same time, due to power outages, the camera could spontaneously change the angle of view, including directing the lens to the territory of a neighbor.

The plaintiff argued that such a system effectively collects information about his movements and family life without consent, violating the constitutional right to privacy. The defendant objected that the camera is needed to protect property, the records are not transmitted to anyone, and the focus is not on the neighbor’s site, but along the fence.

The court took into account that the plaintiff did not give consent to video recording, and the technical characteristics of the device allow monitoring its territory. In addition, the camera was placed so that it did not actually control the defendant’s site. Based on the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the law “On personal data”, the court recognized that the actions of the neighbor pose a threat of violation of personal non-property rights.

In the department of bailiffs in the Osinsk, Bardym and Yelovsky districts of the GUFSSP of Russia in the Perm Territory, an executive document was received for execution with the requirement to oblige a citizen to dismantle the video surveillance camera installed on the fence. The debtor was duly notified of the initiation of enforcement proceedings and warned of the application of penalties in the event of evasion of execution of the court decision. Without waiting for compulsory measures, the man removed the disputed device within the prescribed time.