Can permanent video surveillance at the workplace lead to a five-figure claim for damages? The Higher Labor Court (LAG) Hamm answered this question with a clear “Yes” and ordered an employer to pay 15,000 euros. The judgment of May 28, 2025 (Ref.: 18 SLa 959/24), is a wake-up call and sets a new, high benchmark for compensation regarding data protection violations in an employment context.
The Case: Comprehensive Surveillance at a Steel Workplace
In a steel processing plant, 34 video cameras were installed, filming the premises and workstations around the clock for nearly two years. A production employee, whose workstation was also permanently monitored, felt his personal rights were massively violated and sued for damages. The employer argued that the cameras were necessary for safety reasons, theft prevention, and occupational health and safety.The Decision of the LAG Hamm: An Intentional and Serious Infringement
The court ordered the employer to pay damages amounting to 15,000 euros. The judges evaluated the nearly two-year, gapless surveillance as an intentional, severe, and unlawful infringement of the employee’s rights. The reasoning is a sweeping rejection of impermissible surveillance practices:- No Legal Basis: Neither the Federal Data Protection Act (§ 26 BDSG) nor the GDPR justified such comprehensive surveillance. The employer’s blanket arguments (theft, safety) were far from sufficient to legitimize such a deep intrusion.
- No Valid Consent: The plaintiff had not effectively consented. In an employment relationship, the necessary voluntariness for valid consent is often missing. Furthermore, there was no clear instruction regarding the right to withdraw consent at any time.
- Lack of Necessity: The cameras filmed nearly all work areas without the employer being able to demonstrate specifically why this full-coverage surveillance was necessary for the stated purposes. There was no way for the employee to avoid the surveillance.
- Lack of Data Security: There were insufficient protective measures to restrict access to the recordings. Several people in the company could access the videos at any time.
- Intentional Action: The court accused the employer of “blatantly” and intentionally disregarding applicable data protection law. A decisive point was that the company had not sought data protection advice before installing the cameras.
The amount of 15,000 euros was explicitly justified by the long duration, the massive scope of the surveillance, and the resulting psychological pressure on the plaintiff, and was deemed appropriate compared to previous judgments (often in the range of 2,000 to 7,000 euros).
Implications for Your Company: The Expensive Lessons from the Ruling
- Blanket justifications are worthless: General suspicion or abstract dangers (theft, safety) are not enough to justify permanent employee surveillance. You need a concrete, documented occasion for a specific area.
- Data minimization is essential: Gapless surveillance of all areas is almost always unlawful. You must always choose the mildest yet still effective means. Is a camera really necessary, or would an alarm system or a better locking mechanism suffice?
- Employee consents are legally high-risk: Never rely on the consent of your employees as the sole legal basis for video surveillance. Courts almost always assume a power imbalance that precludes voluntariness.
- Access control is mandatory: If you use cameras lawfully, you must establish a strict concept defining who may access the recordings, when, and for what reason (four-eyes principle, logging, etc.).
- Lack of legal advice is viewed as intent: This judgment makes it clear: Whoever carries out a measure as intrusive as video surveillance without prior legal review is acting with gross negligence or intent, which drives up the amount of damages.
FAQ: Employee Surveillance & GDPR – What You Need to Know
When is video surveillance at the workplace allowed at all?
Only within very narrow limits. It may be permissible in the case of a concrete, documented suspicion of a criminal offense (limited in time and space) or to protect particularly high-risk areas (e.g., checkout areas, vaults) if other means are insufficient.
Is a works council agreement sufficient justification?
A works council agreement (Betriebsvereinbarung) can be a valid legal basis. However, it must also meet the strict requirements of the GDPR, particularly the principles of necessity and data minimization. Blanket approval for total surveillance would be invalid here as well.
How high can damages for inadmissible surveillance be?
This judgment sets a new peak at €15,000. The amount always depends on the duration, intensity, and fault of the employer. The trend in the courts is clearly pointing upwards.
What about cameras in break rooms or changing rooms?
Surveillance in areas serving pure privacy (changing rooms, toilets, break rooms) is strictly taboo and constitutes an extremely serious infringement of personal rights.
Where can I get legally secure advice on employee surveillance?
A sound legal review before installation is essential. The experts at sofortdatenschutz.de analyze your situation and help you find legally compliant solutions. Contact us at sofortdatenschutz.de/kontakt/.
