Privacy & Data Protection
Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.01.10
Other sections of this issue:
Privacy & Data Protection | ISP-Liability & Media Law | Contracts & E-Commerce |
Electronic Communications & IT
The Belgian Act on surveillance cameras of March 21, 2007 (the “Act”), which already entered into force on June 10, 2007, provides for a transitional period with respect to surveillance cameras that had already been installed before its entry into force. With respect to these cameras, the Act holds that controllers only have to comply with the obligations under the Act at the latest three years after that date. The Belgian Data Protection Authority therefore made an appeal to the controllers in order to comply by June 10, 2010.
The Belgian Act on surveillance cameras of March 21, 2007 (the “Act”), which already entered into force on June 10, 2007, provides for a transitional period with respect to surveillance cameras that had already been installed before its entry into force. With respect to these cameras, the Act holds that controllers only have to comply with the obligations under the Act at the latest three years after that date. The Belgian Data Protection Authority therefore made an appeal to the controllers in order to comply by June 10, 2010. Surveillance cameras installed on or after the June 10, 2007 date, already had to comply with the obligations of the Act as from their installation.
A surveillance camera under the Act is:
- each fixed or mobile observation system;
- for the purpose of:
- preventing, establishing or tracking down criminal offences;
- preventing, establishing or tracking down nuisances;
- safeguarding public order;
- that only processes the images for these purposes.
The Act, among others, provides that:
- a separate thematic notification should be filed with the Belgian Data Protection Authority when surveillance cameras are installed;
- the controller of the data processing should make sure that the cameras are not directed towards areas with respect to which the controller is not authorized to process the data;
- a camera that films a private entrance opposite a public area, should be installed in such a way that the filming of this public area is limited to the strict minimum. The necessary technical measures need to be taken;
- the personal data that cannot be used in order to clarify facts that are punishable by criminal law, are not kept for longer than one month;
- the cameras cannot provide images which would harm the intimacy of the data subject or images that would aim at collecting information about philosophical, religious, political or trade union beliefs, about ethnic or racial origin, about sex life or about the state of health;
- the controller should at the entry of the filmed area install the pictogram indicating that there is camera surveillance and this in the format as set forth by law;
- the controller who wants to install cameras to film areas that are not enclosed (streets, squares, ….), should first obtain a positive advice from the town council, which needs to consult with the superintendent of the relevant police district.
It is also important to note that next to this Act, specific obligations apply under Belgian law with respect to cameras installed at the working place. These are provided for in the Collective Bargaining Agreement n° 68. In certain instances, both the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement n° 68 as well as the obligations under the Act, will have to be complied with (e.g. cameras installed in shops in order to film the employees but also to prevent theft by third parties).
For more information, contact: Frederik Van Remoortel.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25

