Information Note on the Court’s case-law 212
November 2017
Antović and Mirković v. Montenegro - 70838/13
Judgment 28.11.2017 [Section II]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Unlawful video surveillance of university amphitheatres: article 8 applicable; violation
Facts – The applicants were university lecturers. Following a decision by the dean to introduce video surveillance in a number of the university amphitheatres, they lodged a complaint with Personal Data Protection Agency. The Agency upheld their complaint and ordered the removal of the cameras, notably on the grounds that the reasons for the introduction of video surveillance provided for by section 36 of the Personal Data Protection Act had not been met, as there was no evidence that there was any danger to the safety of people and property and the university-s further stated aim of surveillance of teaching was not among the legitimate grounds for video surveillance. That decision was overturned by the domestic courts on the grounds that the university was a public institution performing activities of public interest, including teaching. Amphitheatres were a working area, just like a courtroom or parliament, where professors were never alone, and therefore they could not invoke any right to privacy that could be violated. Nor could the data that had been collected be considered personal data.
Law – Article 8
(a) Applicability – University amphitheatres were the workplaces of teachers. It was where they not only taught students, but also interacted with them, thus developing mutual relations and constructing their social identity. The Court had already held that covert video surveillance of employees at their workplace must be considered, as such, as a considerable intrusion into their private life, entailing the recorded and reproducible documentation of conduct at the workplace which the employees, who were contractually bound to work in that place, could not evade. There was no reason for the Court to depart from that finding even in cases of non-covert video surveillance of employees at their workplace. Furthermore, the Court had also held that even where the employer’s regulations in respect of the employees’ private social life in the workplace were restrictive they could not reduce it to zero. Respect for private life continued to exist, even if it might be restricted in so far as necessary.
The data collected by the impugned video surveillance related to the applicants’ “private life”, and Article 8 was thus applicable.
(b) Merits – The relevant legislation (section 36 of the Personal Data Protection Act) explicitly provided for certain conditions to be met before camera surveillance was resorted to. However, in the instant case, those conditions had not been met as the Personal Data Protection Agency had indeed found. In this regard (in the absence of any examination of that question by the domestic courts), the Court could not but conclude that the interference with the applicants’ private life constituted by the video surveillance of their workplace was not “in accordance with the law” for the purposes of Article 8.
Conclusion: violation (four votes to three).
Article 41: EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(See also the Factsheet on Surveillance at workplace)
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy