(with a blurred face of course)
(don't ask me for the source of that, it has been more than 4 years since I read it 
)
Ordinances were repealed with the Public Order Act:dsi11 wrote:Obviously dogs in the city need to pee somewhere but I was confronted by an angry old woman who said that it is Finnish city bylaw (my translation) that my dog is not allowed to pee in the city streets near (or on) the apartment buildings.
I doubt the case was about a fundamental right to do so. Most likely the applicability to member states is that EU legislation does not prevent recording public area for protecting own property. I would investigate local laws before doing so.Piet wrote: About the camera, privacy laws forbid you (automated) record public area / street, but EU court ruled that it is allowed when it is done to protect your own property.
Glad that I made you laugh, that was my good deed for that dayKössi K wrote:Muahahahahahaaaa yeah, good luck in getting (or making, lmao) any dog owner to clean, let alone wash the pee him/herself with soa and hot water off your aita. *still laughing with tears in my eyes* . I'd like to be there to film that with my kännykkä when you try to do that.
Oh, good grief, thanks for the laugh, I needed that.
). Also my communication with the local dog owners about this matter (and the camera) might have helped significantly. Soon it will be enough to have the "dummy lights" blink and stop recording at all.
It was actually about a man that had his car damaged by his neighbour all the time, he placed a camera from his window facing the street where his car was parked, he recorded the neighbour damaging his car on purpose. This was brought to trial and the evidence was dismissed as unlawful obtained (footage) evidence since it was an automated recording of a public area (street) without permission of the local government (privacy law). The case was thrown out of court because of lack of evidence, several appeals followed THEN the guy went to EU court and they overturned the dismissal of the evidence based on the right to protect your own property. After the evidence was admitted, the neighbour had to pay up for all legal fees and the repainting of the car.betelgeuse wrote:I doubt the case was about a fundamental right to do so. Most likely the applicability to member states is that EU legislation does not prevent recording public area for protecting own property. I would investigate local laws before doing so.Piet wrote: About the camera, privacy laws forbid you (automated) record public area / street, but EU court ruled that it is allowed when it is done to protect your own property.
I found a more recent ruling of the CJEU of December 2014. Seems law is starting to catch up with technology because those prick dog owners can't think that if the snow melts then dog shiit will make its way to the street. These people should be fined minimum 600€.007 wrote:Now that snow has melted... there's everywhere dog shiits.... wow, yesterday I was in a notorious area of the town.. and man..there's shiit tons of dog shiits..
