Damages for unlawful video surveillance at work

The unlawful and almost complete video surveillance of an employee at work over a period of 22 months has resulted in the employer being ordered to pay damages of €15,000. In the absence of any legal justification, the intensive video surveillance constituted a serious infringement of the employee's personal rights. This was decided by the Hamm Regional Labor Court in its ruling of May 28, 2025 (Ref.: 18 SLa 959/24).

Facts of the case

The plaintiff worked as a production employee in the defendant's steel processing plant. The defendant's factory hall covers an area of approximately 15,000 square meters. It houses the production hall, a break room, changing rooms, restrooms, offices, and a storage room. The factory hall contains steel, machines, material supplies, and tools. The production hall, warehouse, and offices are monitored by 34 HD video cameras, which film and record the entire area around the clock with a storage period of at least 48 hours. No sound recordings are made. There are signs indicating video surveillance at each access door. Whether the cameras in the offices are dummy cameras is disputed between the parties.

The plaintiff's employment contract contained a clause stating that the employee agreed to the processing of personal data within the scope of the employment relationship and in compliance with data protection regulations. The plaintiff was filmed during his work and on his way to the office, break room, or restroom, but not in the break room, changing room, or restroom facilities. The plaintiff considered the video surveillance to be unlawful and claimed damages for violation of his personal rights, among other things. The defendant countered that the video recordings were necessary to prevent criminal offenses. In addition, the cameras were used to monitor the smooth running of work processes and for documentation purposes in the event of accidents at work and the loading of materials.

The Dortmund Labor Court awarded the plaintiff damages of €15,000, among other things. The defendant's appeal was unsuccessful in this respect.

Reasons for the decision

The Hamm Regional Labor Court ruled that there had been an unlawful infringement of the plaintiff's personal rights. Video surveillance was not justified under either Section 26 of the German Federal Data Protection Act (BDSG) or Article 6 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

There was no valid consent pursuant to Art. 6 (1) (a) GDPR. Consent to data processing by signing the employment contract was not voluntary within the meaning of Art. 7 (4) GDPR and was therefore invalid. This is because the conclusion of the employment contract depended on the declaration of consent and the consent did not bring any advantages to the employee.

The surveillance was also not justified by Art. 6 (1) (f) GDPR, as it was disproportionate. At this point, the Regional Labor Court takes a differentiated approach to the reasons put forward by the defendant for installing video surveillance. None of these reasons could justify such extensive camera surveillance in this specific case. Since the defendant had also acted culpably, namely intentionally, the factual requirements for a claim for damages were met. In favor of the defendant is the fact that the surveillance was overt. In favor of the plaintiff, however, it must be taken into account that the duration of the surveillance was particularly long at 22 months, the surveillance was very extensive, several people had access to the recordings, and the plaintiff had already unsuccessfully objected to the surveillance. In addition, the defendant had not sought advice on data protection law before installing the cameras.

Practical note

The ruling shows that video surveillance of the workplace must be carried out carefully and with restraint. Surveillance must be justified by specific, valid reasons and must not exceed what is absolutely necessary. This applies not only to the area of surveillance, but also to its duration. Consent under data protection law is not generally a valid basis for data processing in an employment relationship, as consent is not usually considered to be given voluntarily in this context. Inadequate data protection compliance can quickly become expensive for employers. Conversely, existing compliance measures can be taken into account in favor of the company.