The Constitutional Court (TC) addressed whether a company can rely on its own recorded data to justify dismissing an employee without violating workers rights. The decision follows the constitutional line seen in prior Supreme Court cases and reinforces how privacy protections interact with the needs of a lawful employer in the modern workplace.
The Court of Assurance clarified that data protection rules apply to recordings made by security devices installed by a company for business purposes. In the matter at hand, the employee was dismissed after the company demonstrated that products were delivered to a third party and funds were misappropriated. The court examined whether the video evidence could form the basis of disciplinary action and whether the employee had been properly informed about the data processing involved in the disciplinary process.
In the ruling accessed by this publication, the Constitutional Court annulled a Basque Country Supreme Court of Justice TSJPV decision from October 2020. That earlier ruling had upheld the worker benefit against the declaration of termination of origin, while the Basque Supreme Court held that dismissal should be deemed unjustified due to the use of recordings from a company security camera. The key question was whether the employee was notified about the processing of data for disciplinary purposes. The court noted that the mere existence of a general notice about the surveillance system was not enough to meet information obligations required for lawful data processing in the disciplinary context.
As a result, the invalidity of the evidence was grounded in a violation of a specific article of the Personal Data Protection Law No. 89.1. The ruling emphasized that generic posters about the surveillance system do not satisfy the necessary information obligations to justify workers’ control measures in this specific case.
After reviewing the appeal, the majority of the Constitutional Court affirmed the Basque TSJ decisions. The court maintained that the company was allowed to use evidence gathered through the surveillance system to assess the termination decision, and that the decisive elements of the dismissal could be verified in line with applicable law. The TC also aligned with the Prosecutor’s Office regarding the admissibility of the recording, noting that its use complied with the court’s jurisprudence and with European human rights standards, while reassuring that workers’ rights were not violated.
Measure provided
The court described the establishment of workplace monitoring as serving a legitimate aim within labor relations. The purpose is to verify compliance with duties inherent to any contractual relationship. In this case the cameras did not operate in resting, leisure, or private spaces but in areas where there is a reasonable expectation of public visibility. The visibility of the system contributed to its legitimacy rather than a blanket intrusion into private life.
The surveillance setup was noticeable to both workers and the general public. It was neither generalized nor used for an ongoing, speculative inquiry. It was deployed to confirm possible irregular behavior that had been observed the day prior. Given these circumstances, the court concluded that the Basque court did not violate the right to use relevant evidence and the process needed to safeguard all guarantees.
Special vote
Nevertheless, five magistrates from the progressive sector filed separate opinions, indicating they could not affirm that the Basque TSJ decision was unlawful or arbitrary in its reasoning, interpretation, or application. Their stance highlighted concerns about whether the case forced a broader interpretation of data protection rules in the workplace.
In the dissent, they argued that the use of video surveillance in this instance did not sufficiently verify the information in question because the company failed to provide workers and their representatives with specific after layoff information five years earlier. The dissenting magistrates contended that the majority’s approach overlooks European human rights standards and the evolving framework for protecting personal data. They urged a re-evaluation of the court’s case law to establish a current standard for data protection in employment contexts.