Can my landlord place cameras in the communal kitchen?

A landlord who installs cameras in and around a student residence to monitor tenants is violating privacy laws. The Data Protection Authority (GBA), in a decision of 4 september 2025 (No. 142/2025) ruled that such surveillance is unlawful and imposed a substantial fine on the landlord. This confirms that the right to privacy and the undisturbed enjoyment of the home outweigh a landlord's desire to monitor compliance with house rules.

The facts: permanent camera surveillance in a dorm room

A student filed a complaint with the Data Protection Authority about the presence of four surveillance cameras in and around the dorm where he rented a room. The cameras focused on:

• The communal kitchen
• The communal terrace and garden
• The entrance to the student building, where the public road and the entrance to the neighbor's house were also filmed

The landlord, a corporation, indicated that the cameras served to "identify irregularities" and protect the property. In practice, however, the images were also used to check compliance with house rules, monitor the number of visitors and even enforce corona measures. The images could be viewed in real time by the company's manager via a smartphone.

The decision of the Data Protection Authority

The Disputes Chamber ruled that the processing of personal data through these cameras was unlawful and in violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

1. No valid legal basis for processing

The landlord could not demonstrate any valid legal basis under article 6.1 of the GDPR to justify the camera surveillance.

• Consent: The implied consent by entering the building, as provided in the Belgian Camera Law, is not sufficient under the GDPR. A tenant has no free choice to refuse surveillance, as this could result in the loss of their lease.
• Contractual necessity: The cameras are not objectively necessary for the performance of the lease. Renting out a student room is perfectly possible without camera surveillance.
• Legitimate interest: This was the most likely legal basis, but the landlord failed the mandatory three-part test:
  • Target test: While the protection of property is a legitimate goal, the constant monitoring of compliance with a house rule is not. This is at odds with a tenant's right to "quiet enjoyment."
  • Necessity test: The cameras were not necessary. Less invasive alternatives were possible, such as better fencing. Moreover, the camera surveillance was not even conclusive, as the front facade remained unguarded.
  • Balancing test: The students' fundamental rights (privacy, inviolability of the home) outweighed the landlord's interest. The DPA recognized that the constant monitoring created a chilling effect: the students felt constantly watched and adjusted their behavior as a result.

2. Violation of the principle of minimum data processing

The camera at the entrance filmed not only the entrance to the property, but also part of the public road and the neighbor's driveway and front door. The camera in the garden also filmed part of the neighbor's garden. This is a clear violation of the principle that only the data strictly necessary for the intended purpose should be processed.

The sanction

The DPA imposed a total administrative fine on the landlord of € 9.700. In addition, the landlord was ordered to immediately stop camera surveillance and delete all images already collected. A warning was also issued for failure to produce a record of processing activities.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This decision is an important reminder of the hierarchy of standards in privacy law. Although the Belgian Camera Law sets certain rules, the stricter conditions of the GDPR always apply. In particular, the concept of "consent" is interpreted much more strictly under the GDPR.

At the heart of the Dispute Chamber's reasoning is the trade-off between the landlord's property right and the tenant's fundamental right to privacy. The DPA makes it clear that common areas such as a kitchen, terrace or garden in a student house are considered an extension of the residents' private living space.

The concept of "quiet enjoyment," anchored in both the old civil code (art. 1719) as the Flemish Housing Rental Decree (Art. 14), plays a crucial role here. A landlord may enter the leased property only under strict conditions, usually by appointment. Permanent camera surveillance is the most far-reaching form of control and is completely incompatible with it. The by the DPA cited ‘chilling effect" underscores the psychological impact: the mere knowledge that one can be constantly watched limits freedom and personal fulfillment.

What this specifically means

• For renters (and students): You do not have to tolerate permanent camera surveillance in common living areas. A mention in the lease or house rules does not automatically make it legal. Your right to privacy and quiet enjoyment prevail. If a conversation with the landlord does not resolve the issue, you can file a complaint with the DPA.
• For landlords: Be extremely careful when using cameras. The goal of protecting your property from vandalism or theft may be legitimate, but monitoring tenants is not. Camera surveillance is a last resort. You should first consider whether less privacy-invasive measures are not possible, such as better locks, a solid fence or clear agreements. Cameras in private living areas such as kitchens, living rooms or terraces are almost always out of the question.
• For syndics and property managers: This ruling is also relevant to you. Advise owners correctly about strict privacy rules. Proactively screening camera use in the buildings you manage can save owners from heavy fines and legal action.

FAQ (frequently asked questions)

My lease states that there are cameras. Have I not then automatically given my consent?
No. According to the GDPR, consent must be free, specific, informed and unambiguous. Because you are in a dependent position as a tenant and your housing is at stake, you cannot give "free" consent. The DPA considers such a clause to be a non-negotiable part of the terms and conditions, making the consent invalid.

What if a camera only films the common entrance hall for security?
This is a gray area and depends very much on the concrete circumstances. If there is a proven and recent security problem (e.g., multiple burglaries) and the camera only films the entrance door (without unnecessarily surveying the public road or neighbors' property), it can possibly be justified under "legitimate interest. However, a camera in a common kitchen or living space can almost never be justified.

What steps can I take if I think the cameras in my building are illegal?
First, speak to the landlord or the property manager and refer to your right to privacy. Try to reach an amicable solution. If this fails, consider filing a mediation request or a complaint with the Data Protection Authority.

Conclusion

The DPA's decision draws a clear line in the sand: the student residence or rental apartment, including common areas, is a private sphere where the right to privacy prevails. Landlords who use cameras as a tool to control and monitor their tenants expose themselves to severe financial penalties and legal action. A forewarned landlord is worth two.