The landlord wants to install cameras in common areas
Karim, a tenant in Etterbeek, recounts how his landlord installed cameras in the entrance hall without authorisation. GDPR, co-ownership and resolution.
- 01 The discovery
- 02 The verification
- 03 The mobilisation
- 04 The removal
- 05 Lessons learned
June 2025 — the discovery
I have been a tenant in a 2-bedroom flat on the 2nd floor of an 8-unit building in Etterbeek for 3 years. My landlord, Mr Janssens, owns 3 flats in the building. The neighbourhood is quiet, the neighbours friendly, the co-ownership well managed.
On 5 June, coming home from work, I noticed a black dome camera installed above the entrance hall door. No pictogram, no signage. I looked around: a second identical camera was filming the bin store in the basement.
Two CCTV cameras, installed without notifying anyone, without signage and without a GDPR pictogram. My discomfort was immediate. These cameras were recording every coming and going of all residents, 24 hours a day.
A CCTV camera in common areas of a building records the comings and goings of all occupants. Without a legal basis (GA vote, DPA declaration, signage), this installation constitutes a violation of the GDPR and potentially of the right to privacy guaranteed by Article 22 of the Belgian Constitution.
June 2025 — the verification
On 8 June I contacted the building’s property manager by email. Simple question: was the camera installation voted on at a general assembly? The response came within the hour: no, no vote had taken place. The property manager was not even aware of the installation.
I then checked the legal requirements. In Belgium, the installation of cameras in a co-ownership is governed by:
- The Camera Act of 21 March 2007 (amended in 2018) which requires a prior declaration to the Data Protection Authority
- The GDPR (European Regulation 2016/679) which requires transparency, a legitimate purpose and proportionality
- The co-ownership act which requires a two-thirds majority vote at the GA for any installation in common areas
Mr Janssens had complied with none of these three obligations.
June 2025 — the mobilisation
On 12 June I sent an email to Mr Janssens. I politely asked the reasons for the installation and what authorisations had been obtained. He replied the next day: he had installed the cameras “for security” following an attempted bicycle theft in the basement. He had acted alone, thinking he was helping the whole building.
His intention was understandable, but his method was illegal. I contacted the other tenants and landlords in the building. Three out of five tenants shared my discomfort. A landlord on the 4th floor was also unhappy: “He has no right to decide alone for the common areas.”
On 20 June we sent a collective formal notice signed by 4 residents. The letter demanded:
- The immediate removal of the cameras
- The destruction of all recorded images
- The convening of an extraordinary GA if the co-ownership wished to vote on a legal installation
A collective formal notice carries more weight than an individual approach. It shows the issue concerns the entire co-ownership, not just one unhappy tenant. The property manager and the landlord take the matter more seriously.
July 2025 — the removal
On 5 July the property manager organised a meeting with Mr Janssens and the signatories of the formal notice. The property manager confirmed the installation was irregular on three counts: no GA vote, no DPA declaration, no GDPR signage.
Mr Janssens agreed to remove the cameras. On 12 July a technician disconnected both devices. Mr Janssens confirmed in writing that the recordings stored on the hard drive had been deleted.
The property manager added a “CCTV for common areas” item to the agenda of the next GA in September, with a quote from a certified installer and a draft DPA declaration. If the co-ownership votes for the installation in accordance with the rules, cameras can be reinstalled legally.
Factual summary: 5 weeks to resolution. EUR 0 in costs. 2 cameras removed. No complaint to the DPA ultimately necessary — the collective formal notice was sufficient. And Mr Janssens, despite his initial disappointment, understood that security and respect for privacy must coexist within a clear legal framework.
What I learned
Three lessons for any tenant or co-owner facing this situation:
-
Security does not justify everything. Mr Janssens’ intention was laudable, but the end does not justify the means. In Belgium, even the police must follow strict procedures to install cameras. An individual landlord has no greater rights.
-
The property manager is your first point of contact. Before filing a complaint with the DPA or going to court, contact the property manager. They manage the common areas and can convene a GA. In my case, the property manager was responsive and effective.
-
Document everything, including the cameras. Photograph the cameras, note the date of discovery, keep written exchanges. If the matter were to go before the justice of the peace or the DPA, these elements would constitute your case. A well-drafted lease agreement can also include clauses on privacy.
Other real-life cases: The tenant doesn’t respect the co-ownership rules and The landlord wants me to leave so they can sell.
- “**Check whether the general assembly voted on the installation.** In a co-ownership, installing cameras in common areas requires a two-thirds majority vote at the general assembly. Without this vote, the installation is irregular, even if the landlord acts in good faith.
- “**Check for the mandatory GDPR signage.** Any CCTV camera must be indicated by a visible pictogram stating the data controller and the purpose. The absence of signage is a GDPR infringement subject to sanctions.
- “**Report to the Data Protection Authority if necessary.** The Belgian DPA handles complaints free of charge. A simple online complaint is enough to trigger an inspection. This is often more effective than court action.
Week-by-week timeline
Frequently asked questions
-
Not on their own initiative. Common areas belong to the co-ownership. Any camera installation requires a two-thirds majority vote at the general assembly, a declaration to the Data Protection Authority (DPA) and GDPR-compliant signage.
-
The data controller (the co-ownership, not an individual landlord) must: display a camera pictogram with legal notices, maintain a processing register, limit the retention period of images (generally 30 days maximum), and ensure restricted access to images.
-
Yes. Any tenant can file a free complaint with the Data Protection Authority (DPA) via the online form. The DPA can order the removal of cameras and impose fines of up to EUR 20 million or 4% of turnover.
-
Absolutely not. The rented property is the tenant's home, protected by Article 15 of the Constitution (inviolability of the home). Any camera inside the property without the tenant's consent constitutes a serious violation of privacy, subject to criminal penalties.
Manage all your leases in one tool
Lease generation, MyRent registration, payment tracking, digital inventory. 14-day free trial, no card required.