ВИДЕО-НАДЗОР У ПРОСТОРИЈАМА ПОСЛОДАВЦА: СЛУЧАЈ АНТОВИЋ И МИРКОВИЋ ПРОТИВ ЦРНЕ ГОРЕ
VIDEO SURVEILLANCE IN THE EMPLOYER’S PREMISES: THE ECTHR JUDGMENT IN ANTOVIĆ AND MIRKOVIĆ V. MONTENEGRO

Summary/Abstract: Owing to the fact that the fundamental human rights have been introduced into the labour law relations, each employer is bound to respect the private lives of their employees. However, this obligation is not absolute, considering that the employer may, under certain circumstances, limit the employee’s right to respect for private life. This possibility greatly depends on how the employee’s right to privacy has been limited. Video surveillance is a measure that most severely affects human dignity, due to which its implementation requires stricter application of the principles of legitimacy, proportionality, and transparency. In this implementation, the key role is played by the principle of legality, especially when the state appears in the role of employer and when its obligation to respect the right to privacy is predominantly negative. The ECtHR judgement in Antović and Mirković v. Montenegro (2017) is another proof that human rights and human dignity have to be respected in the field of labour relations. This judgement is a confirmation that the notion of private life has to have wider interpretation and application in order to ensure the protection of the right to respect for private life. The right to respect for private life, among other things, implies the possibility to access other people in order to establish and develop relations with them. It may involve professional activities or the activities performed in a public context because, even in a public context, there is a zone of interaction with other people, which may be categorised under the notion of private life. Pursuant to the aforementioned, the notion of private life may include activities taking place in auditoria as places where professors, apart from teaching students, interact with them, develop mutual relations and build their social identities. Thus, the right to respect for private life of professors, while in auditoria, may be limited by video surveillance only under legally prescribed circumstances related to the safety of people and property. On the other hand, the surveillance of teaching activities is not among the legitimate grounds for the introduction of video surveillance. In order for this surveillance to be justified, it should be introduced in a transparent manner, i.e. employees must be made familiar with the introduction of video surveillance in advance and in writing, and such surveillance must be proportionate to the specific objective that needs to be accomplished. Only with an appropriate application of all of these principles can we efficiently protect employees’ dignity in the workplace.

• Details
• Contents