Use of Wildlife Cameras for Securing Evidence: Legal Classification and Current Developments
The installation of wildlife cameras on private properties or in their immediate vicinity typically aims to document unauthorized actions such as illegal waste dumping, poaching, or property damage. This form of evidence gathering raises numerous questions in the tension between the legitimate interest in clarification and the data protection as well as personal rights obligations of the parties involved. Recent case law, such as the decision of the Lörrach District Court (Ref.: 3 C 111/22, decision of 05.04.2023), highlights the complexity of the legal situation and establishes guidelines for the permissible use of wildlife cameras in private contexts.
Permissibility of Using Wildlife Cameras – Balancing of Interests
Protection of Property versus Personal Rights
The civil law interest in identifying disturbances to property (cf. §§ 1004, 823 et seq. of the German Civil Code) is recognized. At the same time, this collides with the personal rights of third parties, particularly their right to their own image and the protection of informational self-determination (Art. 1 para. 1, Art. 2 para. 1 Basic Law; §§ 22, 23 Art Copyright Act; Art. 6 GDPR). In such cases, courts regularly examine whether covert or open video surveillance enabled by wildlife cameras is proportionate and justified by the need for protection of the entitled party.
Requirements for Balancing of Interests
Surveillance is only considered lawful if there are concrete indications of unlawful interference with property. According to prevailing opinion, purely preventive surveillance “into the blue” is not sufficient to restrict the rights of third parties. Cameras may also only record those areas for which there is a legitimate interest in monitoring. In particular, public paths, neighboring properties, or areas generally accessible to the public may not be recorded, unless it is absolutely necessary.
Data Protection Requirements and Notification Obligations
Applicability of the General Data Protection Regulation
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) applies if the wildlife camera collects or processes personal data. This is usually already the case when individuals depicted can be identified. The collection, storage, and evaluation of image material is therefore subject to strict legal requirements.
Obligation to Inform and Transparency
If personal data are collected by a wildlife camera, affected persons must be informed pursuant to Art. 13 GDPR. This includes, for example, information on the responsible operator of the camera, the purpose of recording, as well as the possible recipients of the data. In most cases, it is necessary to place a notice at the recording site.
Retention Periods and Purpose Limitation
Image recordings may not be stored indefinitely. As a rule, they must be deleted once the purpose of the surveillance has been fulfilled or storage is no longer necessary. Disclosure to third parties – for example, in the context of a civil proceeding – must be based on a corresponding legal basis.
Admissibility of Camera Footage as Evidence in Civil Proceedings
Evaluation under the Law of Evidence
In each case, the court must determine whether footage obtained with a wildlife camera may be used as evidence in a civil trial. On the one hand, the principles of civil procedure protect the interest in effective judicial clarification. On the other hand, the principle of “prohibition of the use of evidence” applies, insofar as personal rights or data protection have been unlawfully violated and the evidence was thus obtained illegally.
Case Law and Practical Relevance
According to the decision of the Lörrach District Court, under certain conditions, a wildlife camera lawfully used can be fully considered as evidence. The court recognizes a heightened interest in information when comparable disturbances – e.g. illegal waste dumping – have demonstrably occurred in the past and no less intrusive means are available.
Limits of Surveillance and Conclusion
The installation and use of wildlife cameras to secure evidence remains a case-by-case decision, in which a multitude of civil, data protection, and personal rights aspects must be considered. Courts clarify that cameras must not serve as a universal remedy for surveillance, but there must always be a specific and documented risk situation as a basis. Procedurally, maintaining the balance between the interest in evidence and the protection of fundamental rights is of utmost importance.
Should questions arise regarding legal admissibility or the handling of collected recordings in the private or commercial use of surveillance measures, the Rechtsanwälte of MTR Legal Rechtsanwalt can provide support with comprehensive expertise in the area of civil and data protection law frameworks.
