Camera surveillance between neighbours and the right to privacy
Two neighbours in Amsterdam had each mounted a camera on their home and each demanded the other's removal. The judge in interim relief proceedings sided with only one of them. On 28 July 2026 the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam drew the line on both sides: both cameras make an unjustified intrusion into the other's privacy and must come down.
Amsterdam neighbours each demand removal of the other's camera
In 2024 one neighbour placed a camera at the rear of her home, one floor up, behind a window. That camera can move and can be steered in every direction from an app on her phone. It captures a large part of her back garden and part of the public road.
Her neighbours mounted a camera on their front facade, aimed at the public road and angled towards her home. That camera can be pointed left, forwards or right and cannot be operated remotely. Demands went back and forth in September and December 2024, without result.
On 19 November 2024 the judge in interim relief proceedings at the District Court of Amsterdam ordered only the neighbour to remove her camera and dismissed her counterclaim. On appeal the court upheld that order, but set aside the dismissal of the counterclaim and ordered the neighbours to remove their camera as well, on pain of a penalty of EUR 100 per day up to a maximum of EUR 1,000.
The court applies a two-step test: intrusion and justification
The court sets out the framework at para. 6.2. In principle anyone may place a camera to protect their own plot, their own home or their own property on the public road. That freedom is limited by the privacy of others: a camera may in principle not capture, or be capable of capturing, the neighbour's plot, home or person. Under settled case law an intrusion into private life is in principle a tortious act, unless a ground of justification removes that character. Whether such a ground exists follows from weighing the seriousness of the intrusion against the interests served by the camera (Supreme Court, 18 April 2014, para. 5.2.1).
Decisive at the first step is that the court is satisfied with the possibility. The neighbour admitted that her camera moves, resets once a month and then actually turns, and that she can steer it in any direction through the app. Her assertion that the mounting made further movement towards the neighbours' plot impossible was insufficiently explained. That made it sufficiently plausible that the camera captures that plot or is capable of doing so (para. 6.4). The fact that the camera happened to be pointed elsewhere at a given moment therefore does not save it.
Whoever mounts the camera must explain what it records
At the second step both justifications fail on substantiation. The neighbour argued that she wanted to protect her plot, her belongings and her cats. The court accepts that interest, but she did not explain why the camera had to hang one floor up rather than at ground level, below the height of the fence (para. 6.5). The defect lies in the position chosen, not in the camera itself.
For the neighbours the issue is the burden of pleading. They claimed their camera captured only their two cars, but did not substantiate that. The court holds at para. 6.8 that it was for them to do so, because only they can show what their camera records. They had moreover argued that the camera helped prevent situations with their neighbour and rebut her statements, which sits badly with a field of view limited to two cars. Their interest in protecting the cars did not require capturing more than those cars (para. 6.9).
In the decisions analysed that allocation of the burden recurs along two routes. Where the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam reasons through tort, the sub-district court in Midden-Nederland assessed a comparable mutual dispute under the GDPR and placed the burden of pleading and proof expressly on the party processing the images (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2026:905, para. 4.12). The District Court of Gelderland held that the household exemption of Article 2(2)(c) GDPR falls away once the camera also serves the safety of neighbours, and ordered the camera to be turned rather than removed (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:9879). Both routes arrive at the same test: legitimate interest, necessity, proportionality and subsidiarity.
What does this mean for anyone mounting a camera on their facade?
The position of the camera is the point of attack, not its existence. Anyone who could hang a camera lower, conceal it behind a fence or shield it with a privacy mask must explain why that was not done. A movable or remotely operated camera is a risk in itself: in ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2023:4181 the judge expressly prohibited reinstalling a movable camera, while a fixed camera at the front was allowed to remain.
Anyone wishing to keep their camera must be able to demonstrate what it records. That succeeded in ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2025:11492, where the owner used privacy masks and a bailiff drew up a record of findings: the security cameras survived the test and the residual intrusion by the doorbell cameras was held to be justified by the safety interest. It also pays to bring the counterclaim straight away. The court did not regard the counterclaim as prematurely brought and considered it urgent by its nature (para. 6.7), so the neighbour secured her remedy in interim relief proceedings after all.
Frequently asked questions
May a camera film part of the public road?
Not without more. Once the camera captures identifiable individuals, the question is whether the owner's interest outweighs the intrusion. In this case it counted against the neighbours that the footage showed their neighbour entering and leaving her home or car, which goes beyond guarding two parked cars.
Is a camera that does not record also unlawful?
That depends on what is made plausible. The court considered the possibility that the camera could capture the neighbours' plot sufficient. Where it could not be established that a camera worked or was switched on, it was allowed to remain, as in the 2023 decision of the District Court of Midden-Nederland.
Does the GDPR apply to a camera on a private home?
Often it does. The household exemption of Article 2(2)(c) GDPR falls away once the camera covers more than the owner's own private grounds, for instance because it also serves the safety of neighbours or the public road. The requirements of legitimate interest, necessity, proportionality and subsidiarity under Article 6(1)(f) GDPR then apply.
Court of Appeal of Amsterdam, 28 July 2026, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:2101
Cited case law
Supreme Court
- ECLI:NL:HR:2014:942 — an intrusion into private life is in principle unlawful; a ground of justification follows from weighing the seriousness of the intrusion against the interests served.
Courts of Appeal
- ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:2101 — the possibility that a camera captures the neighbour's plot suffices for an intrusion; whoever mounts the camera must substantiate what it records and why the chosen position is necessary.
District Courts
- ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2026:905 — under the GDPR the burden of pleading and proof rests on the party processing the camera images.
- ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2025:11492 — with privacy masks and a bailiff's record of findings the security cameras survive; the residual intrusion by doorbell cameras is justified by the safety interest.
- ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:24055 — the interest in seeing who enters the front garden does not outweigh a doorbell camera's intrusion into the neighbour's privacy.
- ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:9879 — the household exemption falls away once the camera also serves neighbours' safety; turning the camera may suffice as a less intrusive alternative.
- ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2023:4181 — a movable camera filming over the fence must go, with a prohibition on reinstalling one; a fixed camera not shown to be working may remain.
- ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2025:9022 — against the right to protect one's property stands the right to remain unobserved in one's own home and garden.