Video surveillance in dental practice is banned regularly
The Federal administrative court missing necessity
Dentists and also Doctors are allowed to counter to their practice, together with the entrance door, reception and the waiting to monitor rooms via Video. Even if a practice can be freely entered, there is video surveillance at the “data protection law Erforderlichkeit“, held on Wednesday, 27. March 2019, the Federal administrative court in Leipzig, Germany (Az.: 6 C 2.18).
Had sued a dentist from Brandenburg, who left her dentist’s office on the first floor of a health centre via a Video monitor. To do this, you had a camera installed, the counter, the entrance and Sign-in, the hallway and part of the waiting room filmed. The recordings were transferred directly to monitors in the treatment rooms. Storage of the recordings did not take place, even if this was technically possible. The entrance door to the practice was with the sign “videogesichert“ marked.
The country’s privacy Commissioner saw the video surveillance, a violation of the Federal data protection act. The authority demanded that the not be recognized to the visitors-to-reach areas.
The Dentist then pulled in front of the court.
Before the Federal administrative court, however, had no success. Video surveillance in a dental practice, which can freely be used by visitors to enter, be “regularly zulässig“. For exceptions needed to be clearly explained why the video surveillance is necessary and why the privacy interests of visitors in the back have to queue.
This did not set out to the dentist. There is also no evidence that your alleged fear is that people entering the practice and the offences could commit. Also, the video surveillance was not necessary to be able to patients in the waiting room in the emergency quick care. Your objection that you would incur without the video surveillance significantly higher cost, was also “completely flat geblieben“, so, the Federal administrative court.
Here, since the arrangement of the country’s data protection officer in October 2012 was decided by the Federal administrative court alone, according to the Federal data protection act. The for 25. May 2018, the applicable General data protection regulation (DSGVO). At the hearing, the presiding judge pointed out, however, that the video surveillance in a practice would also be in accordance with the new law are regularly not permitted. fle/mwo
