On 11.12.2014 CJEU issue judgement on the preliminary question states, whether the use of the individual camera system put at the family house for the purpose of protection of the property, life, health (from burglary), overlooks the street or other areas near their home fall under the Art. 3 par.2 of the Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data. The Court decided that
The second indent of Article 3(2) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that the operation of a camera system, as a result of which a video recording of people is stored on a continuous recording device such as a hard disk drive, installed by an individual on his family home for the purposes of protecting the property, health and life of the home owners, but which also monitors a public space, does not amount to the processing of data in the course of a purely personal or household activity, for the purposes of that provision.
The Czech Supreme Administrative Court decided in final on 25th February 2015 in favor of Mr. Ryneš stating that before CJEU Czech citizens could not know that the EU directive applies in these cases and that the Czech law was vague. The discrepancy existed among European states. Now it is clear that the Office for personal data protection can issue the fine but the directive allows to take the justified interest of the property owner into consideration. The Supreme Court does not agree that only by installing the camera on a house which overlooks the street and part of the house across the road because to be effective tool of protection it must be in this position. It was this position where previous attacks took place. It is nonsense that the camera should be reclined and has a view only on a wall of the house in question. The circumstances and real life logic must be taken in consideration. Therefor the fine was unlawful.
Full judgement (only in the Czech language) available here: