Camera legislation in Belgium

In our contemporary society, where security and protection of property have become priorities, the use of surveillance cameras is steadily increasing. Whether it is businesses looking to protect their inventory, retailers looking to deter theft, or individuals looking to secure their homes, camera systems have become ubiquitous. However, this growing trend also brings with it important legal responsibilities. Indeed, Belgian legislation sets clear rules and conditions for the use of camera surveillance, which must be scrupulously followed.

Below, we provide an overview of the legal framework surrounding camera surveillance in Belgium. We cover not only the general principles, but also the practical implementation, specific situations such as camera use in the workplace, the use of dashcams, and the interaction between the various applicable legal regulations. As a specialized law firm, we are ready to assist you in correctly implementing camera surveillance within the applicable legal frameworks.

1. The legal framework: an overview

The Camera Act

Camera surveillance in Belgium is primarily regulated by the law of March 21, 2007 regulating the placement and use of surveillance cameras, referred to in practice simply as the "Camera Act. This legislation forms the backbone of all surveillance camera regulations in our country.

In 2018, the Camera Act underwent a significant revision to be aligned with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). These amendments were complemented by several new royal decrees that further detail the practical implementation of the law.

Relationship to the AVG

A crucial aspect of the legal framework is the relationship between the Camera Act and the AVG. Indeed, camera surveillance almost always implies the processing of personal data, making the AVG applicable. However, this does not apply when cameras are used for purely domestic or private purposes, such as a camera filming only the interior of a private home.

It is interesting to note that not all surveillance systems are covered by the AVG either. Fake cameras, for example, which serve only as a deterrent but do not record images, fall outside the scope of the AVG because they do not process personal data. The same goes for cameras placed so high or adjusted that they do not film identifiable individuals.

For the legal basis of camera surveillance, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPB). clarifies that the "legitimate interest" (Article 6.1.f AVG) is often the most appropriate basis. This interest can take different forms:

• Protection of property from theft or vandalism
• Safety of staff and visitors
• Securing sensitive information or facilities
• Prevention of fraudulent activities

Importantly, this interest must be real and actual, not merely fictitious or speculative. There must be a concrete reason or reasonable concern that justifies the camera surveillance. For example, a jeweler in an area with a high number of burglaries has a clearer legitimate interest than an office in a low-risk area with no history of incidents.

Before installing a camera system, the data controller should always critically evaluate whether this measure is suitable, adequate and necessary for the intended purpose. Camera surveillance should be used only when the purpose cannot reasonably be achieved by less intrusive means for the privacy of data subjects.

Recent legislative changes and additions

In addition to the Camera Act, specific laws have recently been passed that regulate the use of cameras in specific sectors:

1. Civil Security Act (2024) A new law regulating the use of cameras by civil security operational services was passed on Feb. 21, 2024. This law, published in the Belgian Official Gazette on April 19, 2024, adds a chapter to the law of May 15, 2007 on civil security. This gives emergency response zones and Civil Protection a clear framework for the use of cameras during interventions. This separate legislation has become necessary due to the increasing use of cameras in emergency vehicles such as ambulances and fire trucks, and provides clear rules about when these services can take images and how long they can be kept.
2. Police Service Act (2023) Since Jan. 21, 2024, police departments have a legal framework for the use of bodycams. This law of Oct. 19, 2023 regulates when and how police officers may use bodycams during interventions. The use of these handheld cameras is subject to strict conditions, protecting both citizen privacy and officer safety. This legislation falls outside the general Camera Act, but is relevant to the broader picture of camera surveillance in public spaces.

These new legal frameworks demonstrate that camera legislation continues to evolve to respond to technological developments and new uses of camera systems, while maintaining the core principles of the Camera Act.

2. Scope of the Camera Act.

Definition and scope

The Camera Law applies to all surveillance cameras on Belgian territory that meet the following criteria:

1. Their purpose is surveillance and monitoring
2. They are used for one of the following purposes:
   • Prevent, determine or detect crimes against persons or property
   • Nuisance prevention, identification or detection
   • Checking municipal regulations
   • Maintaining public order

The law defines a surveillance camera as "any fixed, temporary fixed or mobile observation system whose purpose is the surveillance and monitoring of places and which processes images for this purpose." This broad definition covers a diverse range of camera systems, from simple fixed cameras to sophisticated mobile systems with motion detection or facial recognition.

Scope exceptions

There are important exceptions to the scope of the Camera Act. The law does not apply to:

1. Cameras placed in the workplace for the purpose of:
   • Safety and health of workers
   • Protection of company assets
   • Control of the production process
   • Supervision of employees

These situations are covered by collective bargaining agreement No. 68, about which more later.

2. Cameras installed for purely domestic purposes within a private residence
3. Cameras whose purpose is not surveillance and monitoring, such as cameras for traffic observation or scientific research
4. Fake cameras used only as deterrent

It is important to note that in many situations a cumulative application of different legal regulations may occur. For example, in a store, cameras may serve both to prevent theft by customers (Camera Law) and to monitor staff (Collective Bargaining Agreement No. 68). In such cases, both regulations apply, with the Camera Law taking precedence in the event of any conflicts.

3. Categories of places: a crucial subdivision

The Camera Law makes a fundamental distinction between three different types of places, each with its own specific rules and requirements. This classification is crucial because the category to which a place belongs determines which rules apply and how stringent the requirements are.

1. Non-enclosed location

An unenclosed place is defined as any place that is not bounded by an enclosure and is freely accessible to the public. The most obvious examples are:

• Public roads and streets
• Public squares and parks
• Marketplaces
• Promenades and hiking trails
• Publicly accessible natural areas

The term "enclosure" presupposes at least a clear visual demarcation such as a "private" sign, a road marking, or some other indication by which different places can be distinguished from each other. When a non-enclosed place is temporarily demarcated, such as an enclosed festival lawn, it temporarily becomes an enclosed space.

An important aspect of non-enclosed places is that surveillance cameras may only be placed there by government agencies, not private entities. This reflects the public nature of these spaces and the greater invasion of privacy that camera surveillance there entails.

2. Confined place open to the public

This category includes any enclosed building or area delimited by an enclosure that is intended for public use and where services may be provided to the public. Examples include:

• Shopping malls and individual stores
• Bank branches and post offices
• Restaurants, cafes and catering establishments
• Cinemas, theaters and concert halls
• Public parking garages
• Museums and exhibition spaces
• Sports centers and swimming pools
• Hospitals and medical centers (public areas)
• Schools and universities (accessible parts)
• Hotels and lodging accommodations
• Religious buildings such as churches and mosques

At these places, the public does have access, but under certain conditions (opening hours, entrance fees, rules of conduct, etc.). Here, both public and private entities may install surveillance cameras, subject to compliance with legal requirements.

3. Private place not open to the public

This is any enclosed building or place demarcated by an enclosure and intended for the exclusive use of customary users. This category includes:

• Private office spaces not accessible to clients
• Factory halls and production areas
• Warehouses and storage areas
• Private parking spaces for staff
• Staff rooms in companies
• Technical rooms and server rooms
• Private homes and apartments
• Enclosed areas around businesses
• Secured areas in critical infrastructure

These places are only accessible to a limited group of people such as employees, suppliers and occasional visitors with permission. Camera surveillance rules here tend to be less strict than for the other categories because there is a lower expectation of privacy.

In the case of combining places of different types, for example, a shopping center (publicly accessible) with adjacent offices (not publicly accessible), the rule of thumb is that when camera surveillance is carried out through the same system, the most protective regime applies.

4. Obligations when installing cameras.

1. Internal registration: the camera surveillance register

One of the first obligations when installing surveillance cameras is to keep an internal registry. This register serves as documentation of all aspects of the camera surveillance and must be maintained and updated for as long as the video surveillance lasts.

This register can be integrated into the general processing register required under Article 30 AVG, or kept as a separate document. It should contain the following comprehensive information:

• A detailed floor plan clearly showing the exact location of all cameras
• A technical description of each camera, including type, model, features and technical specifications
• A clear description of the specific purpose of the camera surveillance (e.g., building security, theft prevention)
• The exact legal basis for processing the camera images under the AVG (usually the "legitimate interest")
• A listing of all categories of data subjects who may be filmed (visitors, employees, suppliers, etc.)
• A specification of the types of personal data collected (image recordings only or audio recordings as well)
• A list of all recipients or categories of recipients of the personal data
• The exact physical or digital location where the images are kept
• Information about whether the images are viewed in real time and by whom
• The exact retention period of the images
• A description of how stakeholders will be informed about the camera surveillance
• A detailed overview of all technical and organizational security measures taken
• A confirmation of whether a data protection impact assessment (DPIA) was conducted, and if not, why it was not deemed necessary

This register not only serves as proof of compliance, but also helps the controller maintain a complete overview of all camera systems and their purposes. During inspections by the Data Protection Authority this register will often be the first to be requested.

2. Registration with the Police

A second essential requirement is the notification of each surveillance camera to the police.

The application process is as follows:

1. One notification must be made for each surveillance location, regardless of the number of cameras
2. Registration is done electronically through the online platform www.aangiftecamera.be
3. The information submitted can be accessed, modified or deleted by the controller at any time
4. Notification must be checked and confirmed annually to ensure accuracy

There is an important exception to this notification requirement: cameras used by a natural person inside a private residence not open to the public are exempt from the notification requirement. This includes, for example, cameras that film only the interior of a home.

3. Correct positioning of cameras.

When installing surveillance cameras, the data controller must follow strict rules regarding positioning:

• Cameras may not be specifically directed to places for which the controller is not authorized
• When monitoring a private entrance facing a public space, cameras should be aimed so as to reduce recordings of the public space to the absolute minimum
• Cameras are basically not allowed to film parts of other people's property

The principle of proportionality plays a central role here: interference with the privacy of individuals should be kept to a minimum, and cameras should be positioned so that only what is strictly necessary for the intended purpose is filmed.

An exception exists for certain sensitive sites designated at Royal Decree, such as:

• Airports and train stations
• Nuclear sites and military domains
• Prisons and forensic psychiatric centers
• Port facilities and international institutions
• Buildings of the National Bank of Belgium

At these locations, cameras may be focused on the perimeter immediately surrounding the confined space, which allows for wider surveillance.

4. Icon: transparency is mandatory

One of the most visible obligations is to post a pictogram at every entrance to a surveillance zone. This pictogram must:

• Comply with the official model established in the RD of Feb. 10, 2008
• Be clearly visible at each entrance to the supervised area
• Be sufficiently large in relation to its location

The pictogram or an attached carrier must bear the following statements:

• "Camera surveillance - law of March 21, 2007"
• The name and contact information of the processing controller
• The mailing address and, if relevant, the e-mail address or telephone number
• The contact information of the Data Protection Officer (if any)
• A reference to more information about the modalities of camera surveillance

This pictogram fulfills a dual function: on the one hand, it informs those concerned about the presence of cameras; on the other hand, it forms the legal basis for filming. Indeed, entering a place where it is clearly indicated that camera surveillance is taking place is considered implicit permission to be filmed. Without this signage, there would be prohibited covert camera surveillance.

5. Use and preservation of images

Real-time monitoring: strict limitations

Real-time viewing of camera images is subject to strict restrictions. It is only allowed in two specific cases:

1. For the purpose of immediate intervention in the event of a crime, damage or nuisance. In this situation, images can be viewed by persons who have the authority to take immediate action, such as security personnel.
2. In publicly accessible areas, if a control screen is present in the vicinity of the cameras. This screen must be visible to both the controller and employees and visitors present, such as at the entrance to a shopping mall.

In all other cases, real-time viewing of images may be done only by licensed security officers, or in exceptional cases under the direct supervision of police departments. This restriction is intended to prevent misuse of camera systems for unauthorized surveillance.

Retention periods: clear time limits

The Camera Act sets clear limits on how long camera footage can be kept:

1. General maximum retention period: one month. This period applies to all standard situations and may not be exceeded without a specific reason.
2. Extended retention period: three months. This extended period applies only to specific locations with a special security risk, such as airports, train stations, nuclear sites, and other locations designated by RD.
3. Exception for evidence. If images can help prove a crime, damage or nuisance, or identify perpetrators, witnesses or victims, they may be kept longer than the standard period. In this case, they should be turned over to the police or judicial authorities as soon as possible.

It is important to note that for cameras in publicly accessible confined places, the recording of images is permitted only to gather evidence of nuisance, crime or harm, and to identify those involved. In non-publicly accessible confined places, images may also be retained for other legitimate purposes.

6. Access to images: strict control

Who has access?

Access to camera footage is strictly regulated to protect the privacy of data subjects:

1. In principle, only the controller and persons under its direct authority should have access to the images. This may include, for example, security personnel or specifically designated staff members.
2. All persons with access to the images have a legal duty of discretion. They must not further disseminate or use the information they obtain through the images for any other purpose.
3. Installers and external security firms act as processors. They have no independent right to access the images, but always act on behalf of the processing controller.

The controller must implement adequate security measures to prevent unauthorized access to the images. This includes both technical measures (such as encryption and password protection) and organizational measures (such as access policies and logging).

Transfer to authorities

There are specific rules for sharing images with authorities:

1. Voluntary transfer when crimes or nuisances are established. The controller may transfer images to police or judicial authorities if they show facts that may constitute a crime or nuisance.
2. Mandatory transfer upon request. If the images concern an established crime or nuisance, the controller is obliged to transfer them to the police free of charge upon their first request.
3. Right to judicial mandate. For private places not open to the public, the controller may require that a judicial mandate be produced before images are transferred.

Rights of data subjects

Persons being filmed have specific rights that must be respected:

1. Right to access images. Any person filmed has the right to access images on which he or she appears, provided a reasoned request is made. This right is enshrined in both the Camera Law and the AVG.
2. Practical limitations. In practice, this right may be limited by short retention periods. For example, if images are only retained for 24 hours, it is often technically impossible to respond to a request for inspection in a timely manner.
3. Ban on publication. The Camera Act basically prohibits publishing camera images on the Internet or in a display window. For example, posting images of shoplifters on social media or in store windows is not allowed, even if evidence of theft is available.

7. Decisions of the GBA.

In recent years, the Data Protection Authority (GBA) has focused on repeatedly have to uitssermons on violations of the Camera Act and the AVG:

🔹 Decision 03/2019 - April 2, 2020

Facts:
A student placed a surveillance camera in a common kitchen of a dorm, aimed at the entrance and cooking area. The camera was visible and was for "security reasons" related to previous thefts. Other students felt they were being spied on.

Infringements:
The GBA ruled that the camera use was disproportionate given the lack of less intrusive alternatives and the fact that it was a shared living space. No consideration was given to the privacy of the other students. There was insufficient justification as to why constant camera surveillance would be necessary in this context.

🔹 Decision 16/2020 - April 20, 2020

Facts:
In one store, a camera image was displayed live on a television screen on the outside of the store so that anyone passing by could see the inside of the store and the customers.

Infringements:
The controller had failed to properly record the processing and had seriously violated the obligation to provide information. The pictogram was missing or non-compliant, and the processing was not adequately justified. Moreover, the public projection of images constituted an additional violation of the principle of minimal data processing.

🔹 Decision 36/2020 - September 18, 2020

Facts:
A promoter had installed surveillance cameras in an apartment building under construction. The footage was stored and shared with other parties, including co-investors and project partners. There was no clarity on who had access to the footage and how long it was stored.

Infringements:
The cameras did not focus exclusively on construction site infrastructure, but also recorded passersby and residents of adjacent parcels. The GBA noted a lack of transparency and clarity about responsibilities. There was no record of processing activities, no clear purpose statement, and no sufficient restriction on access.

🔹 Decision 81/2023 - Oct. 11, 2023

Facts:
A Flemish municipality had placed mobile cameras at so-called "critical fly-tipping sites," without a formal decision by the city council or a public communication policy. The cameras were moved ad hoc and could also capture residents or visitors to private property.

Infringements:
The GBA determined that there was no prior city council recommendation, in violation of the Camera Act when used temporarily in public property. The pictograms were too small and insufficiently informative. In addition, the principle of transparency was violated because citizens were not adequately informed about the purpose and duration of the observation.

🔹 Decision 138/2022 - Dec. 10, 2022

Facts:
A private individual installed a fixed camera at his home, aimed at the street and parts of the garden of the opposite neighbors. The camera footage was streamed live to a smartphone app, with the option of manual zoom. No warning signs or privacy notice was visible.

Infringements:
The camera systematically filmed public space and third-party property without any shielding or technical restriction. There was no registry entry, no pictogram, no disclosure, and no demonstrated need for such intrusive processing. The processing had a deterrent effect on the neighbors' behavior, which the GBA considered a qualifying violation of their right to privacy and data protection.

🔹 Decision 81/2023 - Oct. 11, 2023

Facts:
A Flemish municipality installed several temporary surveillance cameras as part of stealth prevention. The cameras were moved around the municipality's territory on a rotating basis. The municipality claimed that the pictograms were permanently present on approach roads and referred to a city council decision and advice from the chief of police.

Infringements:
Inspection by the Inspectorate found that the pictograms were not always present or correctly affixed to the effective location of the camera. There was no visible provision of information at the processing site, in violation of the principle of transparency. Furthermore, the register of processing activities was not spontaneously made available, and the retention period was insufficiently substantiated.

🔹 Decision 04/2024 - February 2024

Facts:
An elementary school had installed a camera in a classroom "to combat bullying behavior" at the request of a parent, without prior consultation with the parents or the school board. The footage was only locally storable but could be viewed live by the administration.

Infringements:
The GBA determined that the use of a camera in a classroom setting constituted a serious intrusion into children's privacy. There had been no DPIA conducted, no prior agreement from the educational council, and no legal analysis of subsidiarity. The school had not adapted a privacy statement to this processing and did not provide information to affected students and parents.

The breach was classified as particularly serious due to lack of necessity, insufficient legal basis, and the vulnerability of those involved (children). The GBA imposed a formal processing ban and obligation to remove the images.

8. Camera surveillance in the workplace: collective bargaining agreement No. 68

A specific legal framework

Camera surveillance in the workplace does not fall under the Camera Act, but under the collective bargaining agreement No. 68 on the protection of employees' privacy in relation to camera surveillance at the workplace. This CBA concretizes and reinforces the principles of the AVG in the specific context of the employment relationship.

Scope and definitions.

CBA No. 68 defines camera surveillance very broadly as any surveillance system with one or more cameras that monitors certain places or activities at the workplace from a point geographically remote from those places or activities. Importantly, the collective bargaining agreement applies regardless of whether the footage is retained.

However, the collective bargaining agreement does not apply when cameras are used for pure training purposes, such as:

• Filming role plays between employees for analysis
• Temporary recordings of the production process for training of new employees

However, filming employees to confront them about their behavior, such as a lack of customer service, is covered by the collective bargaining agreement because it is considered evaluation.

Permitted purposes

Camera surveillance in the workplace is permitted by collective bargaining agreement No. 68 only for the following four purposes:

1. Safety and health. For example, cameras that monitor dangerous situations in a production environment or control access to high-risk areas.
2. Protection of company assets. Cameras monitoring valuable company property, such as in server rooms, near checkout areas or in warehouses with expensive inventory.
3. Control of the production process. This can cover both:
   • The operation of machinery (e.g., for quality control)
   • The employees themselves (for evaluation and improvement of work processes)
4. Control of employee's labor. Cameras specifically aimed at monitoring employee work performance. Importantly, decisions and judgments should not be based solely on camera footage.

For each of these purposes, the employer must provide a clear and explicit description of why camera surveillance is necessary.

Temporary versus continuous supervision

Depending on the purpose being pursued, camera surveillance may be continuous or only temporary:

Purpose	Ongoing	Temporary
Safety and health	Permitted	Permitted
Protection of company assets	Permitted	Permitted
Control of the production process regarding machines	Permitted	Permitted
Control of the production process regarding employees	Not allowed	Permitted
Control of employee's labor	Not allowed	Permitted

This distinction reflects the principle of proportionality: the more the camera surveillance is focused on the employee himself, the more limited the use must be.

Procedural Requirements

Duty to inform

Before installing cameras, the employer must provide comprehensive information to:

1. Works Council (OR). If no Works Council has been elected, this information obligation passes to the Committee for Prevention and Protection at Work (CPBW) or the union delegation.
2. All employees individually. Each employee must be informed personally.

Information to be provided includes:

• The specific goal pursued
• Whether or not the image data is retained
• The exact number and precise placement of all cameras
• The periods during which the cameras operate

It is strongly recommended that this disclosure be documented in detail in minutes of consultation bodies or through written communication to employees. Case law has shown that insufficient documentation can lead to the exclusion of camera footage as evidence in employment disputes.

In certain cases, moreover, the formal procedure to amend the labor regulations must be followed, namely when:

• The purpose of camera surveillance is the monitoring of work performance, especially for wage determination
• Camera surveillance has implications for the rights and duties of supervisory personnel

Consultation requirement

In addition to information, consultation is also mandatory:

1. When camera surveillance may have implications for employees' privacy, the Works Council or PSC must devote an investigation to measures that can minimize the interference.
2. In companies with only union representation, this investigation should be conducted in consultation with them, especially when camera surveillance is focused on:
   • Control of the production process with respect to workers
   • Control of employee's labor
3. The OR or CPBW should regularly evaluate the surveillance systems and may propose revisions as a function of technological developments.

Secret and hidden cameras

Secret cameras

Although CBA No. 68 assumes transparency and prior information, the Supreme Court has found the use of covert cameras (not announced in advance) permissible in certain circumstances. This is the case when:

• An employer has legitimate suspicions that an employee is involved in crimes
• These crimes harm the employer
• Other, less drastic measures would not be effective

In a Feb. 27, 2001 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is not absolute and that under specific circumstances covert video surveillance may be justified.

Whether camera footage from secret cameras can be used as evidence depends on several factors. According to the "Manon ruling" of the Court of Cassation (March 2, 2005), illegally obtained evidence can still be admitted if:

• The irregularity does not jeopardize the right to a fair trial
• The reliability of the evidence is not compromised
• No form requirement prescribed under penalty of nullity is violated

Hidden cameras

With hidden cameras (announced but not visibly placed), the situation is more nuanced. These may be compatible with CBA No. 68, provided that:

• All other principles of the CBA are met
• Use is kept to the bare minimum
• The cameras are necessary to achieve the intended purpose

The European Court of Human Rights has been critical of hidden cameras, however, especially in situations where:

• Recordings made over long periods of time and at all hours of the day
• Employees who are not under suspicion are also filmed
• No prior documented suspicion of misconduct exists
• The images are viewed by several people before the affected employees are informed

9. Dashcams: a specific case

Legal framework for dashcams

Dashcams or dashboard cameras are small cameras installed in vehicles to record traffic through the windshield. They can record permanently or only on specific events such as sudden braking.

The legal status of dashcams is complex:

1. CBA No. 68 does not apply Dashcams do not fall under the definition of camera surveillance under CBA No. 68, which talks about surveillance "from a point geographically remote from those places or activities."
2. Camera law may apply In certain circumstances, however, dashcams may fall under the Camera Act:
   • Cameras focused on the interior of a vehicle (for example, in cabs) are considered fixed surveillance cameras in a publicly accessible confined space
   • Cameras aimed at public roads can be considered "mobile surveillance cameras," which are basically prohibited in non-enclosed places unless for specific purposes by governments
3. AVG is almost always applicable As soon as dashcams process personal data, such as recognizable faces or license plates, the AVG applies. Only purely recreational use by an individual for personal purposes falls outside the AVG.

Conditions for use in commercial vehicles

The use of dashcams in commercial vehicles must respect the fundamental principles of the AVG:

Principle of finality

The purposes must be well-defined, explicit and justified, such as:

• Collecting evidence in accidents
• Observe employee driving behavior (if warranted)
• Increase safety of drivers
• Lower insurance premiums through risk mitigation

The images may not be used for purposes other than those originally recorded unless they are compatible with the original purpose. For example, if images were collected to document accidents, in principle they should not be used to analyze employee driving behavior unless there is a specific trigger such as a complaint about that driving behavior.

Proportionality principle

Data processing must be adequate, relevant and not excessive:

• When recording driving behavior or accidents, sound should generally not be recorded because it is a further invasion of privacy
• Dashcams may not be installed in all commercial vehicles if not necessary for the intended purpose
• Images should be deleted as soon as possible when they are no longer needed (for example, after a ride without incidents)
• The camera should be set to capture only relevant images

Transparency principle

Employees must be fully informed about:

• The presence of the dashcam
• What and when is filmed
• The specific purposes of the recordings
• The retention period of the images
• Their rights as data subjects under the AVG

When introducing dashcams, it is advisable to inform and consult the works council, even if it is not formally required. After all, the works council must be able to give its opinion on all measures that may change the work organization or conditions.

Special concerns in the event of accidents

When a dashcam records an accident, personal data relating to criminal offenses may be processed. These sensitive personal data enjoy special protection under the AVG (article 10) and the Belgian Personal Data Processing Act (art.10).

In principle, the processing of such data is prohibited, but exceptions are possible:

• When the processing is necessary to manage proprietary disputes
• With the consent of the data subject
• When permitted by EU or national law

In practice, the Data Protection Authority has recognized that dashcam footage is often collected to strengthen one's position in litigation, which usually allows reliance on the "management of one's own disputes" exception.

However, the person involved in an accident must be informed of:

• The existence of the images
• The purpose of processing
• The retention period
• Their rights as data subjects under the AVG

Evidential value of dashcam footage

Courts rule freely on the probative value of dashcam footage. It takes into account:

• The registration of place and date
• The shooting angle and whether it gives a full or partial image
• The technical quality of the images
• Possible manipulation of the images

A judge may not disregard dashcam footage outright based on a suspicion of manipulation. In such a case, an expert opinion must first be ordered to determine any manipulation.

10. Sanctions and Enforcement

Criminal Sanctions

Violations of the Camera Law can result in criminal fines ranging from 100 to 20,000 euros. These amounts are further multiplied by the opdeciemen (currently factor 8), bringing the maximum fine to 160,000 euros.

Specific violations that may be penalized include:

• Failure to report cameras to police
• The absence of the mandatory pictogram
• Failure to maintain records of imaging activities
• Covert use of surveillance cameras
• Pointing cameras in places for which one is not authorized
• Granting unauthorized access to images to third parties
• Violation of retention periods

Enforcement by the Data Protection Authority

In addition to criminal penalties, the Data Protection Authority (GBA) can also impose administrative measures for violations of the AVG related to camera surveillance:

1. Warnings and reprimands The GBA can issue formal warnings or reprimands without directly imposing a fine.
2. Corrective measures The GBA may order to:
   • Bringing processing operations into compliance with the AVG
   • Inform concerned parties of breaches
   • Restrict or cease certain processing activities
   • Delete or rectify personal data
3. Administrative fines For serious violations, the GBA can impose administrative fines of up to:
   • 10 million euros or 2% of global annual turnover for minor violations
   • 20 million euros or 4% of global annual turnover for serious violations

A specific inspection service has been established within the GBA that can conduct inspections both on the basis of complaints and on its own initiative to verify compliance with the rules around camera surveillance.

Civil liability

Affected parties who suffer damages from unlawful camera surveillance can also bring a civil claim:

1. Right to compensation. Article 82 AVG gives any person who has suffered material or immaterial damage the right to compensation.
2. Unlawful processing as error. Under Belgian law, failure to comply with the Camera Law or the AVG can be considered a fault within the meaning of Article 6.6 of the Civil Code.
3. Evidence exclusion. In employment disputes, judges may decide to exclude camera footage obtained in violation of the law as evidence.

11. Conclusion and practical recommendations

Summary of key commitments

The legislation surrounding camera surveillance in Belgium is complex and includes various obligations for data controllers:

1. Prior to installation
   • Determine the exact purpose of camera surveillance
   • Evaluate necessity and proportionality
   • Consider whether there are less invasive alternatives
   • If necessary, conduct a data protection impact assessment (DPIA)
2. Upon installation
   • Report cameras to police at www.aangiftecamera.be
   • Establish a registry of imaging activities
   • Place the mandatory icon at each access
   • Position cameras correctly, with minimal impact on privacy
3. During use
   • Limit real-time viewing of images to what is permitted by law
   • Respect the maximum retention periods
   • Provide adequate technical and organizational security measures
   • Respect the rights of data subjects, such as the right to inspect
4. In incidents
   • Turn over images of crimes or nuisances to appropriate authorities
   • Document any deviation from standard procedures

Best practices for compliance

To be in full compliance with applicable laws, we recommend the following best practices:

1. Documentation and policies
   • Establish a comprehensive camera surveillance policy
   • Document all decisions and considerations surrounding the installation
   • Keep accurate records of imaging activities
   • Conduct regular audits of the camera system
2. Technical measures
   • Use camera systems with built-in privacy features (privacy by design)
   • Implement access control to images
   • Ensure automatic deletion after expiration of retention period
   • Secure image storage with encryption
3. Organizational measures
   • Train staff who have access to the images
   • Establish a clear procedure for handling incidents
   • Define who has access to the images and under what conditions
   • Document any request to view or transfer images
4. Regular review
   • Periodically evaluate the need for each camera system
   • Adapt systems to changes in legislation or case law
   • Check the accuracy of applications annually
   • Regularly review security measures in light of new technologies

The role of legal advice

The legislation surrounding camera surveillance in Belgium is complex and includes various obligations for data controllers. Non-compliance can lead to substantial fines and legal complications. When implementing camera systems, it is therefore essential to seek professional legal advice.

Our law firm has extensive expertise in privacy and camera laws. We offer support for:

• Preparing the required documentation
• Going through the proper procedures
• Informing data subjects
• Properly implementing camera systems
• Responding to requests from data subjects or authorities
• Creating a customized camera surveillance policy
• Conducting data protection impact assessments
• Handling breaches and incidents