”
Background to the legal dispute
\n\n
The decision of the Munich Local Court (case no. 222 C 226/23) was based on a neighborhood dispute that was triggered by a drone flight. The purpose of the operation was an intended survey of a roof. In this context, the drone was used to produce aerial images intended to determine measurements.
\n\n
The proceedings concerned whether the drone flight and the associated creation of image material in the specific individual case constituted an unlawful interference with the neighbor’s rights, or whether the use for the roof survey had to be legally tolerated.
\n
Subject matter of the dispute and the parties’ submissions
\n
Alleged impairments
\n\n
On the claimant’s side, it was complained that the use of the drone had interfered with privacy. At the core was the allegation that areas had been captured whose observation or recording the person concerned did not have to tolerate. In addition, concern was raised that camera recordings could affect personal data.
\n
Purpose and scope of the drone use
\n\n
In contrast, it was argued that the flight served exclusively to technically capture the roof for surveying. The use was therefore functionally limited and was not aimed at spying on private living areas or observing uninvolved persons. The use had been limited to the time and purpose required.
\n
Key statements of the Munich Local Court’s decision
\n
Permissibility in the specific individual case
\n\n
The Munich Local Court considered the drone flight for the roof survey permissible under the circumstances specifically established. Decisive was the classification of the operation as a purpose-bound measure to record the roof, and not as targeted surveillance of adjacent residential or private areas.
\n
Balancing of competing interests
\n\n
According to the court’s assessment, a balancing was required between the owner’s interest in carrying out the survey and the opposing interest of the neighbor in protecting their privacy. In this balancing, in particular the purpose, intensity, duration, and range of the capture were taken into account. Decisive was that no further impairment was established that went beyond what was necessary for the roof survey.
\n
Significance of image recordings and data protection relevance
\n\n
The decision is connected with the question of the extent to which image recordings by drones can have relevance under data protection law and personality rights. In its assessment, the court focused on whether and to what extent private areas or identifiable persons are affected and whether the use is limited to a technical-functional objective.
\n
Classification for practice
\n\n
Drones are increasingly being used as tools in real estate and construction practice, for example for as-built documentation and surveying purposes. Legally, this regularly affects several protected interests, in particular the general right of personality and—depending on the specific design of the recordings—issues of data protection law. The decision of the Munich Local Court illustrates that the legal assessment depends largely on the circumstances of the individual case, in particular on purpose limitation and the intensity of the interference.
\nSource: urteile.news, article “Drone flight for roof surveying permissible (03.02.2026)”, available at: https://urteile.news/AG-Muenchen_222-C-226_Drohnenflug-zur-Dachvermessung-zulaessig~N35738
\n
Points of connection for data protection law issues
\n\n
Where drones use camera technology, questions often arise regarding the permissibility of processing image data, information obligations, and the delineation of permissible pursuit of purpose as against the legitimate interests of data subjects. Anyone seeking a legal classification in this context in relation to data protection risks will find further information at MTR Legal on legal advice on data protection.
“
