If you are against cameras in the entrance
Those who do not like cameras in the entrance can refer to:
- Art. 23 and 24 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantee the inviolability of private life and prohibit the collection and storage of information about the private life of a citizen without his consent.
- 1 st. 247 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation - the use of property that is in shared ownership is permissible by agreement with other co-owners. The norm is relevant for low-rise buildings with 2-8 apartments that are in common shared ownership and are not legally separated in favor of each owner.
- Art. 304 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation - the homeowner has the right to demand the elimination of any violations of his rights, even if they are not related to an encroachment on his right to own property.
However, in all cases there is little reference to a normative act, it is also important to correctly substantiate your arguments. If you claim that your neighbor is violating your right to privacy, prove it
Your movement along the entrance is not "private life", it is a public area.
Similarly, the installation of cameras that record the entrance and exit of residents from the entrance on a par with the owner of the camera living there cannot be a collection of information. But if the camera also captures another entrance, then justified claims from its residents may already arise.
Judicial practice is it possible to put cameras in the entrance
Judicial practice in this area is quite diverse. Let's be honest - the courts often "float" in the whole complex of rules governing the installation and operation of surveillance cameras in the entrances of a residential building. Somewhere this is due to the unwillingness to delve into the nuances, somewhere - the insufficient qualifications of judges who have not encountered such issues.
Appropriate solutions include:
Case 2-223/2016 ~ M-142/2016 of the Rylsky District Court of the Kursk Region. The court confirmed that the cameras installed in common areas do not capture the interior location of the residents' apartments. Directed to public areas and cannot violate privacy. Plaintiffs' argument that the owner of the video surveillance system collects information about their private lives is speculation and is not substantiated. At the same time, the cameras were installed according to the positive decision of the majority of the residents of the entrance, which was supported by the protocol.
Of the solutions that cause some misunderstanding, we can note:
Case No. 2-1257 / 2015 ~ M-1361 / 2015 of the Predgorny District Court of the Stavropol Territory, where the court, having established that the cameras were installed in public places, concluded that they still collect information about the private life of residents and obliged the defendant dismantle the camera in the entrance. At the same time, the court considered the cameras outside the house to be legal and dismissed the claim. Apparently, the reason for this decision was the lack of consent of the residents of the house, which was interpreted by the court as an illegal collection of data on private life. At the same time, no other evidence that the owner of the video surveillance system collected any information about private life was presented to the court.
All cases can be found by production number and court name on the website bsr.sudrf.ru
How to protect yourself from a possible lawsuit demanding to remove cameras?
- Talk to the residents of the entrance about the installation of cameras. Perhaps someone will even want to help you financially or "connect" to the project.
- Hold a general meeting of residents, about the date, time and place of which hang announcements in the entrance.
- At the end of the meeting, draw up a protocol, reflect the positions of the residents, list those who appeared.
- If there are more of those who are "FOR" - feel free to install the equipment, but make sure that it is not sent to other people's apartments.
This category of cases is still quite complex and atypical for the courts.There is no universal solution or recommendations, each situation is studied by the court, taking into account the arguments of the parties. If you have already filed a lawsuit, it's time to seek help from a qualified lawyer.
You can get a free consultation or seek help from experienced lawyers by calling the hotline numbers listed below.
Post Views:
1 730
What cameras are most often installed by residents of MKD at the entrance
At the same time, tenants of apartment buildings often install:
- Cameras on the outer walls (windows) of the house, aimed at the parking lot, road or driveways to the house;
- Cameras in the foyer or near the entrance group of the entrance, registering all incoming and outgoing residents;
- Video cameras on the staircase where the apartment of the owner of the video surveillance system is located;
- Cameras over their own door, filming everyone who comes up to it.
Usually, the desire to install cameras in the entrance is hardly related to the usual concern for security. Most often, the reason for such a decision is either regular hooligan actions or conflicts with neighbors who are not averse to either spoiling the door or doing other dirty tricks. It is logical that hooligans and other brawlers taken by the bridle are not eager to become heroes of social networks or even personal archives of residents and by hook or by crook try to get rid of them.
There is only one legal way to get rid of the cameras in the entrance - to file a lawsuit with a demand to oblige them to be dismantled, but this requires good reasons.
