- The Grand Chamber held that covert surveillance, in that specific case, did not violate the right to private life of the workers.
- The judgment gives no free hand: it requires reasonable suspicion of serious misconduct and a proportionate measure.
- In Spain, informing staff remains the rule, with limited exceptions regulated by law.
On 17 October 2019, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered judgment in López Ribalda and Others v. Spain. It ruled, by 14 votes to three, that there was no violation of the right to respect for private life of five supermarket workers, and unanimously that the right to a fair trial was not breached either. The judgment overturns the one delivered in January 2018 by a lower chamber, which had found a violation.
The facts go back to a supermarket where the manager detected discrepancies between stock and sales. The company installed visible cameras, of which it informed staff, and others hidden and aimed at the tills, of which it did not. The recordings showed workers stealing, and the company dismissed fourteen people. The Spanish courts upheld the dismissals, and several of those affected went to Strasbourg. The workers argued that the recording infringed their right to privacy and that the lack of prior notice made the evidence unlawful.
The Court’s reasoning
The Grand Chamber examined whether the Spanish courts had adequately weighed the employees’ privacy against the company’s interest. It concluded that they had: there was reasonable suspicion of serious misconduct and significant losses, the measure was limited in scope to the tills, the monitoring lasted a limited time and there was no equally effective, less intrusive means.
The court acknowledges that the duty to inform workers in advance, which Spanish law required, is very important, and that only an overriding requirement to protect significant interests can justify dispensing with it. In this case it found that such a justification existed, but warns that this is not a general authorisation to monitor in secret. The Court stresses that the place of surveillance matters: a till open to the public carries a lower expectation of privacy than a changing room or an office.
What it means for Spanish companies
An employer may monitor compliance with workers’ obligations, but within limits. The 2018 data-protection law regulates video surveillance at work and requires employees to be informed in advance, clearly and concisely. It provides a limited exception: if the commission of an unlawful act in the act is captured, the usual information sign is enough.
In practice, the judgment confirms a prudent line: covert surveillance must be the exception, justified by specific suspicions, limited in time and space, with no less intrusive alternative. A camera in a changing room, a toilet or a rest area would remain, in principle, inadmissible.
What to review
The company should review its video-surveillance and monitoring policies: where cameras are, for what purpose, how staff are informed, who has access to the recordings and how long they are kept. It is advisable to document the justification for each device and to consult the works council or workers’ representatives where appropriate.
Before resorting to an exceptional measure, it is worth assessing with an employment lawyer whether there are alternatives, what evidence is needed and how to respect workers’ rights. Evidence obtained excessively may lose its value and complicate the defence of a dismissal. A company that activates exceptional measures must later be able to show that there was no less intrusive way of protecting its property.
An employer’s legitimate control ends where its workers’ privacy begins.
This article is general information. It is not legal, tax or investment advice, and it does not take anyone’s particular circumstances into account.
