Spring Law Spring Law Spring Law Spring Law
  • Home
  • About
    • Our Approach
    • Our People
  • Services
    • Dispute Avoidance
    • General Counsel Advisory Services
    • Risk & Litigation Ready Audit
    • Employment & Consultancy Arrangements
    • Merger & Acquisition Risk Profiling
    • Rep Control
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Business Disputes
    • Personal Disputes
    • Investigations
    • Intelligence
    • Public Sector
    • Risk Control
    • Disputes Management
  • Insights
  • Contact
Spring Law Spring Law
  • Home
  • About
    • Our Approach
    • Our People
  • Services
    • Dispute Avoidance
    • General Counsel Advisory Services
    • Risk & Litigation Ready Audit
    • Employment & Consultancy Arrangements
    • Merger & Acquisition Risk Profiling
    • Rep Control
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Business Disputes
    • Personal Disputes
    • Investigations
    • Intelligence
    • Public Sector
    • Risk Control
    • Disputes Management
  • Insights
  • Contact
Jan 12
Supermarket worker

Surveillance Camera Violated Article 8 Privacy Rights

  • 12 January 2018

The European Court of Human Rights has held that a Spanish employer’s decision to install hidden video cameras to monitor suspected thefts by a number of supermarket cashiers violated the cashiers’ privacy rights under Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The employer had installed:

  1. several visible surveillance cameras aimed at detecting theft by customers, and
  2. several concealed cameras aimed at recording theft by employees.

Shortly afterwards, five employees were caught on video stealing items, and helping co-workers and customers steal items. The employees admitted involvement in the thefts and were dismissed. The employees pleaded that the use of the covert video evidence in the unfair dismissal proceedings had infringed their Article 8 privacy rights. Spanish courts determined that the dismissals were fair.

The European Court disagreed, upholding the employees’ claim finding that the Spanish courts had failed to strike a fair balance between the employees’ right to respect for their private life and the employer’s interest in protecting its property.

The majority found that the employer’s rights could have been safeguarded by other means, notably by informing the employees in advance of the installation of the surveillance system and providing them with the information required by Spanish data protection law (López Ribalda and others v Spain (Application nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13).)

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • E-Mail

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

  • Scope of Business Interruption clauses in light of Covid-19 25 September 2020
  • Restructuring & Insolvency Update: Furlough schemes and the administration of companies 25 June 2020
  • Restructuring & Insolvency Update: The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill 15 June 2020
  • Commercial Loan Agreements: Does Covid-19 constitute a material change in circumstances? 1 June 2020
  • Vicarious liability for employee data breaches: the case of Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants 28 May 2020
LinkedIn icon
Crown Commercial Service Supplier logoAnnecto logoChambers UK logoThe Legal 500 UK logo

London | Chichester | Gibraltar

Pricing Complaints Legal Privacy Cookies

©2021 Spring Law Limited | Registered Company No. 5512395 | Website by Maroon Balloon & StudioMoo

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. For information on cookies and how we use them, please see our Cookie Policy