23 Oct Video surveillance of employees did not violate the right to privacy

In the case of López Ribalda and Others v. Spain (applications nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13) the European Court of Human Rights held, by 14 votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and, unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial).

The case concerned the covert video-surveillance of employees which led to their dismissal. In 2009 the applicants were working as cashiers or sales assistants for supermarket chain ‘M’. After noticing irregularities between the shop’s stock and its sales and finding losses over five months, the manager of the supermarket installed both visible and hidden CCTV cameras in June of that year. Soon after installing the cameras he showed film of the applicants and other staff taking part in the theft of goods at the shop to a union representative. Fourteen employees, including the applicants, were dismissed on disciplinary grounds. The dismissal letters stated that the videos had caught the applicants helping customers and other co-workers to steal items and stealing them themselves.

The Court found in particular that the Spanish courts had carefully balanced the rights of the applicants – supermarket employees suspected of theft – and those of the employer, and had carried out a thorough examination of the justification for the video-surveillance. 

A key argument made by the applicants was that they had not been given prior notification of the surveillance, despite such legal requirement, but the Court found that there had been a clear justification for such a measure owing to a reasonable suspicion of serious misconduct and to the losses involved, taking account of the extent and the consequences of the measure. Furthermore, the applicants had had other legal remedies available such as a complaint to the Data Protection Authority or an action in court for an alleged breach of their rights under the Personal Data Protection Act, however, they had not used them. Thus, the domestic courts had not exceeded their power of discretion (“margin of appreciation”) in finding the monitoring proportionate and legitimate and there had been no violation of Article 8.

Regarding the applicants’ claim on the use of the video-recordings as an evidence, the Court considered in particular that the applicants had been able to contest the use of the recordings and that the courts had given extensive reasoning in their decisions. The video material had not been the only evidence in the case file, the applicants had not questioned its authenticity or accuracy and the Court took the view that it was sound evidence which did not need further corroboration. The courts had taken other evidence into consideration, such as the parties’ testimony. The Court thus held that the use of the video material as evidence had not undermined the fairness of the trial.

References from the official website of the European Convention on Human Rights