Video Surveillance of the Employees Between the Right to Privacy and Right to Property After López Ribalda and Others v. Spain

• Autore: Veljko Turanjanin
• Carica: Assistant Professor of Law, University of Kragujevac (Republic of Serbia)
• Pagine: 268-293

†Dr. Veljko Turanjanin, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Kragujevac (Republic of Serbia); Ph.D.,

University of Kragujevac (Republic of Serbia). Dr. Turanjanin focuses on criminal procedure law, juvenile

criminal law, organized crime and human rights. The latest scientific projects he has been dealing with

cover the topics of human rights and the relationship between Serbian and E.U. law.

llV

OLUME

5llI

SSUE

2 A

RTICLES

& E

SSAYS

U

NIVERSITY OF

B

OLOGNA

L

AW

R

EVIEW

hps://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2531‐6133/10514

A

Video Surveillance of the Employees

Between the Right to Privacy and Right to Property Aer

López Ribalda and Others v. Spain

V

ELJKO

T

URANJANIN

†

ABSTRACT

The tension between safety and privacyhas become an important issue in the modern world. Video

surveillance systems are indeed powerful tools for fighting crime on the one hand, and for the

protection of property from theft on the other. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has

examined the issue of video surveillance in many of its decisions. In this work, the author analyses

the issue of video surveillance overemployees and its influence on fundamental human rights and

freedoms. He elaborates upon the ECtHR’s case of López Ribalda and Others v. Spain in order to

identify the balance between the right to privacy and the right to property. This is a case from the

civil law, but with elements that could may be used in the criminal proceedings. Furthermore, it

is important to determine when exactly the video footage of employees may be used as evidence

in criminal proceedings. After the introductory remarks, the author briefly deals with the facts

of the above case and explains the basic applicable international legal acts. He then observes the

issue of video surveillance from twopoints of view – those of Article 8 and Article 6 of the European

Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Finally, he concludes that the

ECHR took the right direction in establishing the balance between the protection of property and

the right to privacy.

KEYWORDS

Video-Surveillance; Employee; Illegally Obtained Evidence; Human Rights

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................ 269

1. Facts of the Case López Ribalda and Others v. Spain ....................... 271

2. Relevant InternationalActs in This Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

3. Video-Surveillance of the Employee and the Right to Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

4. Whether the Video-Surveillance of the Employee is Illegally Obtained Evidence? . . . . . 288

Conclusion ............................................. 292

268

2020] UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 5:2

INTRODUCTION

As a child, I read two books that influenced me deeply: George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous

Huxley’s Brave New World. At the time, it seemed to me that those works told stories of an

unimaginable future; yet, that future is now here. In recent times, the use of video

surveillance by both the public authorities and the private sector is becoming

increasingly common, and so are fear and distrust, as demonstrated by specific problems

and public outrage aroused by Edward Snowden’s recent disclosure

S

.1Video

surveillance, without a doubt, represents a valuable tool to protect people and property

from damage and theft. Further, prosecuting authorities around the world have

increasingly come to rely on the notion of seriousness to loosen the safeguards built into

the criminal justice system, most notably around the protection that is usually granted

to suspects, shifting towards a risk–security–seriousness paradigm, while simultaneously

increasing the use of surveillance and closed-circuit television [hereinafter C.C.T.V.]; in

turn, these are often at odds with the notion of respect for private life, as exemplified in

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

[hereinafter Eur.Ct.H.R.].2As Mahmood Rajpoot and Jensen point out,

. . . law enforcement agencies worldwide rely on closed circuit TV (C.C.T.V.)

systems to help prevent, detect and investigate attacks against public safety.

It is also used to detect and investigate attacks against property, e.g.

vandalism. The private sector also uses C.C.T.V. to protect public safety in

the private sphere mostly to protect against intrusions, theft and

vandalism.3

The first video surveillance systems appeared in the 1950s and their development was

then boosted by the invention of the video cassette in 1956; used by private individuals,

these quickly became widespread in the following three decades.4However, the practice

of visual surveillance is much older,originating in the late nineteenth century as a method

to assist prison officials in the discovery of escape techniques.5

Today, video surveillance is most often used in public places and by institutions

or companies, who operate C.C.T.V. systems composed of a set of cameras monitoring a

1Rachel C. Taylor, Intelligence-Sharing Agreements & International Data Protection: Avoiding a Global Surveillance

State, 17 W

ASH

. U

NIV

. G

LOB

. S

TUD

. L. R

EV

. 731, 739 (2018).

2A

NTHONY

A

MATRUDO

& L

ESLIE

W

ILLIAM

B

LAKE

, H

UMAN

R

IGHTS AND THE

C

RIMINAL

J

USTICE

S

YSTEM

105 (2014).

3Qasim Mahmood Rajpoot & Christian Jensen, Video Surveillance: Privacy Issues and Legal Compliance,in

P

ROMOTING

S

OCIAL

C

HANGE AND

D

EMOCRACY THROUGH

I

NFORMATION

T

ECHNOLOGY

69 (Vikas Kumar & Jakob

Svensson eds., 2015).

4See Council of Europe, Video Surveillance of Public Areas (PACE,Working Paper No. 115, 2008).

5A

NTHONY

C. C

APUTO

, D

IGITAL

V

IDEO

S

URVEILLANCE AND

S

ECURITY

1 (2010).

269