Surveillance cameras installed in the corridors of residential buildings that monitor neighbors may be considered illegal, according to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Operative Information Center-OMM reports that this decision was reached following the review of a specific case involving a dispute between neighbors living on the same floor of an apartment building.
In the case, one resident filed a lawsuit alleging that a neighbor's installation of surveillance cameras in the common corridor and at the entrance of their apartment violated their right to privacy. The Supreme Court clarified that while every individual has the right to install surveillance cameras to ensure the security of their home and property, this right must not infringe upon the privacy of others.
The court emphasized that the concept of private life extends beyond the interior of an apartment. Information regarding when a person enters or leaves their home, who visits them, their daily routine, and the continuous recording of their image constitutes private data. Consequently, systematic collection of such information through surveillance can be considered an unauthorized intrusion into private life.
According to the Supreme Court's legal position, a surveillance camera covering a common corridor or the entrances of other apartments in a multi-story building can only be installed with the consent of the affected neighbors. If such consent is not obtained, the camera's field of view must be strictly limited to the entrance of the owner's own apartment. It should not continuously record the corridor, elevator areas, or the entrances and movements of other residents. If the camera's view exceeds these necessary limits, it constitutes an intrusion into private life, which is protected by the Constitution.
In this specific case, the Supreme Court ordered that the camera installed above the apartment door must have its field of view restricted solely to the entrance area, while any other camera covering the common corridor or neighbors' doors must be removed. The court deemed this approach a necessary and proportional measure to ensure a fair balance between the rights of the parties involved.
Furthermore, the court noted that being under surveillance against one's will for an extended period can create a sense of constant monitoring, leading to psychological distress and moral suffering. In such instances, if an unlawful intrusion into private life is proven, there is no need to separately prove moral damage; the unlawful act itself creates a presumption of such damage, and the burden of proof shifts to the defendant.
Based on this legal stance, the Supreme Court not only upheld the claim that the neighbor's privacy rights were violated but also ruled that compensation for moral damages was legally justified.
Context: This ruling sets a significant legal precedent in Azerbaijan regarding the balance between property security and the constitutional right to privacy. As the use of smart home security systems and doorbell cameras becomes increasingly common in urban centers like Baku, this decision provides clear guidelines for residents and property management on the legal boundaries of surveillance in shared living spaces.
