Facts
Tenant [C.] filed a lawsuit against landlords A.A. and B.A. for the removal of the video surveillance cameras installed in and on the property at U.-Strasse 2-6 in V. The Cantonal Court of Basel-Landschaft ordered the landlords to remove the cameras in the building entrance area of the property at U.-Strasse 2 and in the passages to the laundry room between the properties U.-Strasse 2 and 4 as well as 4 and 6, but considered the remaining cameras to be admissible. The landlords appealed against this decision.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It stated that the lower court had correctly carried out a balancing of interests in accordance with Art. 13 of the Federal Act on Data Protection (FADP). While the landlords have a significant interest in protecting their property from burglary and vandalism, and the majority of tenants welcomed the video surveillance, the interest of tenant [C.] in preserving his privacy nevertheless takes precedence in the areas of the building entrance and the passages to the laundry room. Permanent surveillance in these areas, which allows for a systematic recording of his behaviour, constitutes a significant interference with his…