Compensation for permanent unlawful surveillance in the workplace

Hamm Regional Labor Court, May 28, 2025 – 18 SLa 959/24

Background

Numerous video cameras were installed in the defendant's industrial plant. These covered almost the entire production hall and other areas of the plant. The cameras recorded in high image quality and also offered the possibility of zooming in. The plaintiff, as the employee concerned, was usually filmed from behind at his workplace, but also from the front when leaving his workplace. The video cameras filmed 24 hours a day, but no sound was recorded. The recordings were stored for 48 hours. Signs indicating video surveillance were posted at the entrances to the premises. Break rooms, changing rooms, and restrooms were not filmed; otherwise, however, there was no surveillance-free retreat area in the work area. In total, the surveillance ran for a period of around 22 months.

The employer justified the video surveillance with several objectives: deterrence and investigation of theft and vandalism, increased occupational safety through the evaluation of accidents at work, tracking of machine failures, and documentation of correct loading procedures. Access to the recordings was only possible for a few people.

The plaintiff's employment contract contained a passage that read as follows:

“The employee agrees that their personal data may be processed within the scope of the purpose of the employment relationship and in compliance with data protection regulations.”

After almost twelve months, the plaintiff had pointed out to the employer that video surveillance was undesirable and, in his view, disproportionate. Nevertheless, the employer continued with video surveillance.

Assessment by the court

Video recordings of employees are personal data. Their processing is only permitted if there is a legal basis for doing so. Proportionality is particularly important: the benefits of surveillance must be proportionate to the intrusion into privacy.

The court found that comprehensive, long-term, and close-meshed camera surveillance constituted a significant intrusion into the employee's general right of privacy.

The combination of several factors was decisive: the large number of cameras, the almost complete coverage of the work areas, the possibility of zooming, the high-resolution image quality, and the duration of almost two years. Based on general life experience, this led to considerable pressure to adapt and be observed. An employee who is effectively constantly in the field of view of cameras and whose movements and presence can be seen at all times is noticeably restricted in their self-determined behavior.

The purposes cited by the employer could not justify this intensity of surveillance. Such extensive observation of the entire interior area is not sufficient for theft prevention, especially since the alleged risks were hardly substantiated by the employer. Where the danger is more likely to come from outside (e.g., burglaries), less intrusive measures such as monitoring access roads, entrances, or outdoor areas would be more appropriate. There was also a lack of concrete information on the frequency, locations, and usefulness of video recordings for occupational safety and accident analysis. The same applies to the tracking of machine failures. The argument that the cameras were used to document the correct loading of the produced material was also not convincing, as the cameras covered far more than the loading area, and the short storage period (against this background) argues against reliable evidence in the event of a dispute with customers. The video surveillance at issue was disproportionate and therefore not justified under Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR.

There was no valid consent from the employee to the video recordings. A blanket consent in the employment contract, as in the present case, is not sufficient as a legal basis. Valid consent must be voluntary, transparent, and informed. In an employment relationship, genuine voluntariness is regularly problematic and, in connection with the conclusion of the employment contract, effectively non-existent. In the present case, the "consent" was also included as one section amongst many the employment contract; there was no visible separation. The employee could therefore not conclude the employment contract without giving his consent. In addition, he was not informed of his right of withdrawal.

Consequences of the Violation

Due to the serious violation of personal rights, the court awarded the employee monetary compensation in the amount of €15,000 in accordance with Section 823 (1) BGB [German Civil Code] in conjunction with Section 253 (2) BGB.

The duration of the measure, the almost complete coverage area within the hall, the possibility of live monitoring, and the sustained pressure situation were the main factors in determining the amount. In favor of the employer, it was taken into account that the surveillance was carried out openly. However, the decisive factor was that the intensity of the observation was clearly excessive in relation to the low occupancy targets.

The decision underscores that video surveillance in the workplace is only permissible within a narrowly defined framework. Employers must justify the purposes, necessity, and design very precisely, provide concrete evidence of actual interests, and always choose the least intrusive means. General security or organizational interests are not sufficient for permanent, comprehensive surveillance.