Author: Stephanie Strachan
Published: January 23, 2018
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 4 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
The answer is that it could violate Article 8 of the ECHR Right to Privacy.
In a recent Spanish case in the European Court of Human Rights which considered the use of covert cameras recording staff for evidence of suspected thefts. Staff were told about some cameras but there were additional ones that were placed covertly. As a result several employees were dismissed based on evidence obtained from the covert cameras.
A Spanish court found the cameras were justified, appropriate, necessary and proportionate, however, the ECHR disagreed on appeal and said this was a breach of privacy. Surveillance is an intrusion into private life and a fair balance of the right to privacy against the employers rights had not been met.
If you do have covert surveillance in your workplace then we would advise our clients to contact us for specific advice on the uses of that as in some circumstances use of this may be acceptable.