[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$fAdx6JOPBqiLkhSo9APiAs-ghDG7YrWueq3MUidkMLh8":3},{"article":4,"iocs":46},{"id":5,"title":6,"slug":7,"summary":8,"ai_summary":9,"brief":10,"full_text":11,"url":12,"image_url":13,"published_at":14,"ingested_at":15,"relevance_score":16,"entities":17,"category_id":24,"category":25,"article_tags":29},"76ddbd6b-3d26-437e-8b96-d714ed86038e","VG Berlin - 42 K 73\u002F25","vg-berlin-42-k-73-25-9b4839","Created page with \"{{COURTdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=Germany |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png |Court_Abbrevation=VG Berlin |Court_Original_Name=Verwaltungsgericht Berlin |Court_English_Name=Administrative Court Berlin |Court_With_Country=VG Berlin (Germany) |Case_Number_Name=42 K 73\u002F25 |ECLI=ECLI:DE:VGBE:2026:0506.42K73.25.00 |Original_Source_Name_1=VIS Berlin |Original_Source_Link_1=https:\u002F\u002Fgesetze.berlin.de\u002Fbsbe\u002Fdocument\u002FNJRE001643568 |Original_Source_Language_1=German |O...\" Show changes","A German court has overturned a reprimand issued by the Data Protection Authority (DPA) against the operator of Berlin's outdoor swimming pools. The DPA had cited violations of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR for requiring photo IDs and implementing video surveillance in entry\u002Fexit areas. The court ruled that these measures were necessary for tasks carried out in the public interest under Article 6(1)(e) GDPR, citing the need to prevent crime and ensure safety for swimmers and staff.","German court annuls DPA reprimand on photo ID and video surveillance at swimming pools.","Help VG Berlin - 42 K 73\u002F25: Difference between revisions From GDPRhub Jump to:navigation, search Newer edit →VisualWikitext Revision as of 11:50, 17 August 2026 view source Av (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, noContributionReport, Administrators134 edits Tag: Decisions [1.0]Newer edit → (No difference) Revision as of 11:50, 17 August 2026 VG Berlin - 42 K 73\u002F25 Court: VG Berlin (Germany) Jurisdiction: Germany Relevant Law: Article 6(1)(e) GDPR Decided: 06.05.2026 Published: 31.07.2026 Parties: National Case Number\u002FName: 42 K 73\u002F25 European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:DE:VGBE:2026:0506.42K73.25.00 Appeal from: Appeal to: Unknown Original Language(s): German Original Source: VIS Berlin (in German) Initial Contributor: av A court annulled a reprimand issued by the DPA and held that requiring a photo ID to access outdoor swimming pools and video surveillance in the entry and exit areas constituted necessary processing for a task carried out in the public interest. Contents 1 English Summary 1.1 Facts 1.2 Holding 2 Comment 3 Further Resources 4 English Machine Translation of the Decision English Summary Facts The controller ran 29 outdoor swimming pools in Berlin. In summer 2023, the controller introduced expanded identity verification checks and video surveillance measures due to safety concerns, such as aggressive behaviour and verbal and physical attacks by potential customers (the data subjects). Swimmers aged 14 and older were only granted access to the outdoor pools upon presentation of a photo ID, and video surveillance was implemented in the entry and exit areas. The video footage was stored for 72 hours. The DPA issued the controller a reprimand in August 2025. It held that the identity checks and the video surveillance were not necessary to fulfil the controller’s duties set forth in national law or ensure safety at the swimming pools and found a violation of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. The controller appealed the DPA decision in September 2025. Holding The court annulled the DPA decision and held that the identity verification checks and video surveillance had been necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest within the meaning of Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. First, the court pointed out that the processing operations must serve objectives in the public interest in order to be lawful under Article 6(1)(e) GDPR. The aim of both measures was to prevent criminal offences, restore safety at the outdoor swimming pools for swimmers and staff members, and to protect the lives, health, and freedom of these individuals. This requirement was therefore fulfilled. Second, the court held that the criterion of necessity was also satisfied regarding both processing operations. According to the court, there did not appear to be a less intrusive measure that would interfere less with the fundamental rights of the data subjects and improve safety at the pools just as effectively than requiring swimmers to present a photo ID upon entry. Similarly, video surveillance was deemed the only viable option to ensure safety in the exit and entry areas, where the staff were exposed to considerable danger of assaults and threats. The court deemed the restriction to the right of informational self-determination to be relatively minor, since video surveillance was only used in four pools where the risk was high, did not cover the entire pool area, and resulted in recordings that were only stored for 72 hours. Comment Share your comments here! Further Resources Share blogs or news articles here! English Machine Translation of the Decision The decision below is a machine translation of the German original. Please refer to the German original for more details. Court: Berlin Administrative Court, 42nd Chamber Date of Decision: May 6, 2026 Case Number: 42 K 73\u002F25 ECLI: ECLI:DE:VGBE:2026:0506.42K73.25.00 Document Type: Judgement Source: Legal Provisions: Art. 4(1) EUV 2016\u002F679, Art. 6(1), sentence 1, letter e EUV 2016\u002F679, Art. 58 (2)(b) del Reglamento General de Protección de Datos de la UE 2016\u002F679, § 23 del Código de Bathing Facilities de Berlín (BäderAnstG BE), § 20(1) del Código de Protección de Datos de Berlín (DSG BE) ... más The decision of the Berlin Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information dated August 4, 2025, is set aside. The defendant shall bear the costs of the proceedings. The judgement is provisionally enforceable with respect to costs. The judgement is provisionally enforceable upon posting of security in the amount of 110% of the sum enforceable pursuant to the judgement. Facts 1 The plaintiff challenges a data protection warning issued by the Berlin Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information. 2 Among other things, the plaintiff operates 29 outdoor swimming pools in Berlin. In 2023, there were several safety-related incidents at these pools, such as aggressive behavior, threats, and verbal and physical attacks by (potential) pool patrons against other patrons and against the plaintiff’s staff. There were three evacuations of pools. In some cases, outdoor pools were also closed because the plaintiff’s employees had called in sick following the incidents. 3 Consequently, the plaintiff implemented several new security measures at its outdoor pools. The package of measures comprised a total of 40 measures intended to improve overall safety at the summer swimming pools. These included the expansion of identity checks as well as video surveillance measures. 4 Starting on July 19, 2023, swimmers aged 14 and older were granted access to the summer pools only upon presentation of photo identification. Identification documents were verified at the entrances without storing any data. If there was suspicion of a ban from the premises, the plaintiff’s employees or security staff would compare the identification document with the list of imposed bans. 5 Starting in August 2023, at the Neukölln, Pankow, Am Insulaner, and Kreuzberg outdoor pools, the entry and exit areas around the turnstiles—which must be passed through to enter or exit—were subject to surveillance using video cameras. The video data was stored for 72 hours. There was no live monitoring or unscheduled review — Page 1 of 12 — by the plaintiff in the lawsuit. The recordings were made available to the police upon their request. 6 Immediately after the measures were introduced, the defendant intervened and reviewed their admissibility under data protection law. In a letter dated February 22, February 2024, the defendant requested that the plaintiff not continue the requirement to present identification during the 2024 summer season. Although the scope of the data processing was minimal, it constituted a borderline case regarding the applicability of data protection law. However, despite this, the measures constituted a not insignificant intrusion into personal rights. The plaintiff had not yet demonstrated the necessity of video surveillance under data protection law. 7 The plaintiff subsequently sent the defendant an evaluation report on the measures summer season of 2023. According to the report, the security situation had improved significantly as a result of the introduction of the new security measures. Evacuations of outdoor pools had been entirely avoided. Violent altercations had ceased to occur. The sense of security among bathers and the plaintiff’s employees had increased. 8 The plaintiff revised the security measures for the 2024 summer season. During this season, the requirement to present photo identification remained in effect. Name checks were now conducted only when personalized tickets were used, if a person appeared familiar to security personnel and there was suspicion that they were subject to a ban from the premises, as well as for individuals exhibiting suspicious behavior. 9 By decision dated August 4, 2025, the defendant issued a warning to the plaintiff, following a hearing, for violations of the General Data Pro","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Findex.php?title=VG_Berlin_-_42_K_73\u002F25&diff=52699&oldid=0","https:\u002F\u002Fgdprhub.eu\u002Fimages\u002F4\u002F4c\u002FCourts_logo1.png","2026-08-17T11:50:53+00:00","2026-08-17T12:00:20.847902+00:00",7,[18,21],{"name":19,"type":20},"GDPR","product",{"name":22,"type":23},"VIS Berlin","vendor","c5c77cdb-f7d7-4990-9436-c81dcbff1163",{"id":24,"icon":26,"name":27,"slug":28},null,"Policy","policy",[30,34,39,41],{"category":31},{"id":32,"icon":26,"name":19,"slug":33},"3f0f8451-91df-4b6c-9a73-ef3b2509b7f1","gdpr",{"category":35},{"id":36,"icon":26,"name":37,"slug":38},"53f9c4b6-8bc6-4964-9169-d09e5cd41d72","Compliance","compliance",{"category":40},{"id":24,"icon":26,"name":27,"slug":28},{"category":42},{"id":43,"icon":26,"name":44,"slug":45},"d95477d7-eb04-4fad-a2dc-be1428040ce7","Privacy Fines","privacy-fines",[]]