Video surveillance is increasingly being used to secure homes. The angle of the cameras may only extend as far as the property boundary. Public areas or neighbouring properties may not be recorded. However, in the case of the K. family from Pörtschach, a neighbour did not adhere to these rules. In the course of proceedings concerning a breach of data protection, it was discovered that the neighbour's cameras, which can be controlled at any time via an app, were also filming the K. family's property. A decision by the data protection authority confirmed the misconduct and ordered that the cameras be technically adapted so that recordings of the public road and the neighbouring property are no longer possible. It was only after repeated requests from the family that the Klagenfurt district authority began to enforce the decision, but stopped its efforts prematurely. The K. family turned to Ombudswoman Gaby Schwarz, who found clear words in the ORF programme "Bürgeranwalt" on 23 May 2026.
The neighbour justified that the surveillance devices were being operated in accordance with the law and sent photos to the district authority showing that the camera settings had been changed using a black screen, which can be controlled via software. The Klagenfurt district authority therefore considers the requirements to have been met and sees no reason for further enforcement proceedings.
"The data protection authority clearly states: A software-based black screen or other measures that can be reversed with little effort do NOT fulfil the decision. These cameras are therefore not being operated in compliance with the law. I wonder how the Klagenfurt public prosecutor's office can misinterpret the decision in this way," emphasises Ombudswoman Gaby Schwarz. Regarding the photo evidence with the black screen, the Ombudswoman states: "These cameras can be controlled via APP. The angle and black screen can be changed at any time. How does the district authority intend to check this?"
When the K. family again pointed out that they were still exposed to possible video surveillance, the authority replied that this would have to be clarified in a new procedure. In the opinion of Ombudswoman Gaby Schwarz, this is not necessary: "I have no sympathy for the behaviour of the Klagenfurt District Court. There is a valid decision from the data protection authority. The BH has to enforce it and impose a penalty if the defendant does not fulfil the requirements. Full stop."
Ombudsman Board reaches a solution between the municipality of Schwechat and the nursery
A good solution in the interests of all parties involved was reached between the municipality of Schwechat and Mrs R. after the Ombudsman Board intervened. The tenant of the nursery turned to the Ombudsman Board because she had been presented with a new lease by the municipality and felt that her livelihood was being jeopardised. "A new lease has since been signed, which provides for a lifelong right of residence. As the Ombudsman Board found out by means of an agreement from 1929, the buildings are owned by the municipality. Mayor Karin Baier reacted accordingly on the basis of this document: The residential building was repaired at the expense of the municipality, the greenhouse was renovated and outbuildings were demolished. I would like to expressly thank the mayor and the municipal council for this swift and solution-orientated approach," says Ombudswoman Gaby Schwarz.
"I expect the BH Klagenfurt to execute the decision of the data protection authority," Ombudswoman Gaby Schwarz.