- Enforcing jurisdiction
- Germany · Geography does not establish applicable law.
- Confirmed applicable legislation
- Privacy topics
Court case 2 AZR 296/22 – Court Ruling (Germany, 2023)
Privacy enforcement record
This record is classified outside cookie consent. Subject classification does not confirm an applicable law. It is not included in cookie statistics or the Risk Calculator.
A German court ruled on the use of video surveillance footage in a workplace dismissal case. The court decided that the footage could be used as evidence despite the employee's claim that it was obtained unlawfully. This ruling clarifies the conditions under which surveillance data can be used in employment disputes.
What happened
The court upheld the use of video surveillance footage in a case where an employee was dismissed for misconduct.
Who was affected
The employee who was dismissed and claimed the surveillance footage was unlawfully obtained.
What the authority found
The court ruled that the footage could be used in the dismissal case, balancing the employee's rights with the employer's need to defend its actions.
Why this matters
This case illustrates the complexities of using surveillance data in employment matters. It emphasizes the need for employers to understand the legal boundaries of data use in workplace settings.
View original scraped data
Original imported citations before automated processing; the processing history does not establish independent verification.
Source checks
Linked-source text retrieved.
Automated check recorded — 20 March 2026.
No issues were reported by that automated check.
Retrieved text may be a secondary summary or an announcement. These automated statuses do not establish that the original decision was read or that the record received an independent legal review. How we check sources
The controller fired the data subject for having declared to be in the workplace when they had actually left the office. To substantiate this claim, the controller used images from the video surveillance system. The data subject objected to the decision before a labour court, claiming that data obtained in violation of the GDPR could not be used in a labour procedure against the data subject. In particular, the controller did not fully comply with their obligation to inform in accordance with Article 13 GDPR. The court of first instance upheld the data subject’s position. The controller appealed the decision and lost also in second instance. Therefore, they brought the case before the German Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht - BAG). The court further acknowledged that in principle, according to Article 17(1)(d) GDPR, personal data shall be deleted when they were unlawfully processed – in this case ‘collected’. However, Article 17(3)(e) GDPR provides for an exception for those cases in which processing is still necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims. The court pointed out that Article 17(3)(e) GDPR also requires a balancing of interests oriented by proportionality. As a matter of fact, the defence of one’s rights before courts is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 47 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Thus, the data subject’s fundamental rights to privacy and data protection (Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter) should be seriously threatened in order to justify an erasure. The impact of a video surveillance system on a data subject is that the latter’s self-determination could be impaired. However, in the case at issue the data subject was not limited in their behaviour by the video surveillance. To the contrary, despite aware of the cameras, they committed a disciplinary offence. What the data subject invoked to limit the use of the recording as evidence was not a constitutionally protected right, as data prot
Outcome
Court Ruling
A ruling by a national court on a data-protection matter.
Related Cases (0)
No other cases found for Court case 2 AZR 296/22 in DE
This is the only recorded case for this entity in this jurisdiction.
Details
Ruling Date
29 June 2023
Authority
DPA BAG
About this data
Cite as: Cookie Fines. Court case 2 AZR 296/22 - Germany (2023). Retrieved from cookiefines.eu
Last updated: