The influence of european jurisprudence in the admission of evidence obtained by the employer to control the worker

• Author: Dra. Paloma Arrabal Platero
• Profession: Profesora Contratada Doctora interina. Universidad Miguel Hernández
• Pages: 261-268

261

The influence of european jurisprudence

in the admission of evidence obtained by the employer

to control the worker

D. P A P

Profesora Contratada Doctora interina. Universidad Miguel Hernández

1. INTRODUCTION

The legality of evidence obtained by the employer in his control function has

been the subject of various resolutions in the European jurisprudence. This work

analyzes and examines last of sentences, handed down by the Grand Chamber of

the European Court of Human Rights, which reviews the sentence handed down

by the Third Chamber in the case “López Ribalda and others against Spain” on the

violation of the Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

(relating to the Right to a fair trial and the Right to privacy, respectively). The

ruling of the seventeen Judges - although three cast a dissenting vote - concludes

that there is no violation of either of the two guarantees, confirming the ruling

of the Third Chamber regarding article 6 of the ECHR, but revoke it with respect

to what was held in reference to the 8 of the Convention. The legal discussion

focuses on the legality as evidence in judicial processes for dismissal of images

obtained by hidden video surveillance cameras installed by the employer without

the knowledge of the workers. In the particular matter, it is especially relevant

that the employer had prior suspicions of such actions by the employees due to

irregularities between the inventory and the daily sales data that represented

losses of more than 80,000 euros. Also the recording was made in a space public

for a short time of ten days. The Strasbourg Court maintains that there is no

violation of the right to a fair trial since the plaintiffs had the opportunity to

challenge the nullity of the evidence in the process and that there are no reasons

to suspect that the agreement reached by some workers with the employer to

avoid the labor procedure in exchange for not initiating criminal actions, it was

signed under duress. Furthermore, on this second occasion the ECHR points out

that there is no violation of the Right to Privacy either, since the interference in