Spring Law Limited Spring Law Limited Spring Law Limited Spring Law Limited
  • Home
  • About
    • Our Approach
    • Our People
    • Our Case List
  • Services
    • Dispute Avoidance
    • General Counsel Advisory Services
    • Risk & Litigation Ready Audit
    • Merger & Acquisition Risk Profiling
    • Rep Control
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Business Disputes
    • Personal Disputes
    • Investigations
    • Intelligence
    • Spring Law | Chichester
  • News
  • SRA
    • Pricing Policy
    • Complaints Handling Procedure
  • Contact
Spring Law Limited Spring Law Limited
  • Home
  • About
    • Our Approach
    • Our People
    • Our Case List
  • Services
    • Dispute Avoidance
    • General Counsel Advisory Services
    • Risk & Litigation Ready Audit
    • Merger & Acquisition Risk Profiling
    • Rep Control
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Business Disputes
    • Personal Disputes
    • Investigations
    • Intelligence
    • Spring Law | Chichester
  • News
  • SRA
    • Pricing Policy
    • Complaints Handling Procedure
  • 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

  • Spring Law Newsletter Autumn 2025 23 September 2025
  • Supreme Court Victory for Spring Law in Landmark Dishonest Assistance Case 29 July 2025
  • Reforms Under the Employment Rights Bill 2024   3 June 2025
  • Spring Law in the UK Supreme Court 12 May 2025
  • A New Approach to Costs in the Business and Property Courts 12 May 2025
LinkedIn icon
Cyber Essentials certification mark
The Lawyer Network member logo

London | Chichester | Gibraltar

Pricing Complaints Legal Privacy Cookies

©2025 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