Federal Court of Justice

Communication of the press office

No. 88/2018

Usability of Dashcam admissions as

Evidences in the accident liability process

Judgment from the 15th of May, 2018 – VI ZR 233/17

The VI civil senate of the Federal Court of Justice has decided on the usability of Dashcam admissions as an evidence in the accident liability process.

To the circumstances:

The plaintiff takes up the defendant and his liability insurance after a traffic accident on remaining compensation. The vehicles of the parties had collided of internal place by the link bending on two left-hand turn lanes running side by side at the side. The partners argue about who has left of his both tracks and has caused the collision. The journey before the collision and the collision were taped by a Dashcam which was right in the vehicle of the plaintiff.

The district court has awarded half of his total loss the plaintiff under the point of view of the company danger. The plaintiff has for his assertion, the defendant has got by the bending by his vehicle on the lane used by the plaintiff, has adduced no evidence. The expert comes in his certificate to the result that from technical view the portrayals of both parties are possible to the accident procedure in principle. To use to the offer of the plaintiff, from him with a Dashcam to made picture admissions, is not to be followed. The appeal of the plaintiff has rejected the district court. The recording offends against data protection-juridical regulations and is defeated by a proof utilisation ban. With the check admitted by the district court the plaintiff follows up his complaint desire.

The decision of the senate:

On the check of the plaintiff the Federal Court of Justice has lifted the appeal judgment and has referred back the thing to the new negotiations and decision to the district court.

The presented video recording is inadmissible according to the valid data protection-juridical regulations. She disowns BDSG against §4, because it has occurred without approval of the affected persons and cannot be supported on §6 B paragraph 1 BDSG or §28 paragraph 1 BDSG. In any case, a permanent anlasslose recording of the whole events on and along the distance of the plaintiff is not necessary for the perception of his perpetuation of evidence interests, because it is technically possible to form a short, occasion-related recording immediately of the accident events, for example, by durable headlining of the recordings in short distances and releasing the lasting storage only with collision or strong delay of the vehicle.

The presented video recording is still usable as an evidence in the accident liability process. The inadmissibility or legal adversity of a proof elevation leads in the civil action not without next to a proof utilisation ban. On the question of the usability is to be decided rather on account of an interest consideration and good consideration after the in particular cases given circumstances. On the other hand, the consideration between the interest of the proof leader in the penetration of his civil law claims, his claim anchored in the basic law to juridical hearing in connection with the interest in a functioning civil administration of justice on the one hand and the general personality right of the proof opponent in his stamping as a right on ulna of information self-determination and if necessary as a right in own picture leads to one outbalancing of the interests of the plaintiff.

The events occurred in the public street space in which the defendant has proceeded voluntarily. He has exposed himself by his participation in the public traffic even to the perception and observation by other road users. Only processes on the public streets which are discernible basically for each were taped. Account is to be also taken the frequent special lack of evidence which is owed of the quickness of the traffic events. Accident-analytic certificates assume dependable establishing facts enough which there are often not.

The possible intervention in the general personality rights of other (cofilmed) road users does not lead to another weighting. Since account which are not aimed at a proof utilisation ban is to be taken above all by the regulations of the data protection right her protection.

Offence against the data protection-juridical regulations can be avenged with high fines and deliberate actions against remuneration or in enrichment or damage intention are threatened with term imprisonment. For the rest, the supervisory authority with measures can intervene for the removal of data protection offence steering.

Finally, is to be noted in the accident liability process that the law has assigned to the proof interests of the accident injured person by the regulation §142 StGB (Unauthorised removing of the accident place) a special weight. Then an accident partner must allow the statement of his person, his vehicle and the kind of his participation by his presence and by the information that he is involved in the accident. After §34 Highway Code own name and own address are to be indicated by request to show the driving licence and the vehicle light as well as to provide information about the liability insurance.

The decisive regulations are:

§4 paragraph 1 BDSG:

(1) The elevation, processing and use of personal data are only allowed, as far as this law or another regulation permits this or arranges or the affected person has agreed.

§6 B paragraph 1 BDSG:

(1) The observation publicly of accessible rooms with optical-electronic facilities (videosupervision) is only allowed, as far as they.

3. for the perception to legitimate interests is necessary for specifically agreed purposes and no clues insist that protective-worthy interests of the affected persons predominate.

§28 paragraph 1 BDSG:

(1) Raising, to memories, changing or transmitting personal data or her use as means for the fulfilment of own commercial purposes is allowed

2. as far as it is necessary for the protection to legitimate interests of the responsible place and no reason for the acceptance insists that the protective-worthy interest of the affected person predominates in the exclusion of the processing or use. …


AG Magdeburg – judgment from the 19th of December, 2016 – 104 C 630/15

LG Magdeburg – judgment from the 5th of May, 2017 – 1 p. 15/17

Karlsruhe, 15th of May, 2018

Press office of the Federal Court of Justice
76125 Karlsruhe
Phone (0721) 159-5013
Fax (0721) 159-5501