The Use of Dash Cams in Portugal: Legal Framework and Practical Issues

In recent years, the growing popularity of dash cams—cameras installed in vehicles to record footage while driving—has raised several legal concerns in Portugal, particularly with regard to the protection of personal data, privacy rights, and the admissibility of such recordings as judicial evidence.

What Are Dash Cams?

Dash cams are surveillance cameras mounted inside vehicles, intended to capture images of public roads. They are frequently used as a safety measure, both to deter risky behaviour and to document potential accidents or incidents.

The Portuguese Data Protection Authority (Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados, or CNPD) considers that the systematic recording of public roads using dash cams constitutes a violation of Article 19 of Law No. 58/2019, which implements the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) within the Portuguese legal system. This provision states that “Cameras must not capture public roads, adjacent properties, or other areas not under the exclusive control of the data controller, except insofar as is strictly necessary to monitor access to the premises.”

However, the CNPD’s position is not without controversy. The GDPR does not apply to the processing of data carried out by a natural person in the course of purely personal or household activities. From this perspective, the mere act of recording images by a driver for personal use (for instance, to protect themselves in the event of an accident) may not constitute a breach of data protection legislation—provided that the recordings are not published, shared, or used for commercial purposes.

Therefore, the illegality may not arise from the act of recording itself, but rather from the subsequent use of the footage, particularly if it infringes upon fundamental rights such as an individual’s honour, image, or private life.

Use as Judicial Evidence

One of the most significant issues concerns the admissibility of footage obtained through dash cams as evidence in court. Although there is no specific legislation governing these devices, Portuguese case law has, in certain circumstances, accepted footage recorded by private individuals as admissible evidence, especially in cases involving criminal offences.

Portuguese courts have acknowledged that such footage may be considered valid evidence, provided that:

• It does not involve sensitive data or intimate content;

• The footage was captured in public or publicly accessible locations;

• The core of the individuals’ private lives remains protected;

• The recording is proportionate, necessary, and appropriate to the purpose (e.g., proving an accident or a crime).

This involves a case-by-case analysis based on a proportionality assessment, balancing the right to privacy against the interest in uncovering the material truth.

The right to one’s image is enshrined in the catalogue of fundamental rights and freedoms of every citizen. The law stipulates that no one may reproduce, display, or commercially use another person’s likeness without their consent. However, the law also exempts consent when the image is captured in public places or in the context of publicly relevant events that occurred in public.

Criminal law provides for imprisonment or fines in cases of recording and using images without consent, particularly when involving words not intended for public dissemination or the capture and use of photographs or recordings of an individual, even if they are attending a public event.

The lack of a clear legal framework on the use of dash cams in Portugal creates uncertainty for both users and authorities, thereby underscoring the need for legislative debate that promotes a fair balance between privacy rights and public safety. By contrast, in countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom, or France, the use of dash cams is permitted, albeit subject to specific legal restrictions and obligations regarding data minimisation and user information.

Thus, the legality of recording and using dash cam footage will always depend on the specific circumstances of each case, requiring a proportionality-based assessment of the potentially conflicting fundamental rights involved.

Until specific regulation is introduced, users of such devices should adopt a cautious approach—limiting recordings to what is strictly necessary, avoiding the dissemination of footage, and ensuring, wherever possible, the protection of third parties’ privacy.