Workplace Surveillance –
What to look out for?
Workplace cameras may be used only where the employer can demonstrate a legitimate purpose, necessity and proportionality of the interference with employees’ privacy. Employees must be informed in advance, while sensitive areas such as changing rooms or toilets must not be monitored. The article explains the balancing test, recording retention, covert monitoring and GDPR duties.
Key takeaways
Legal basis
The use of cameras will only pass a balancing test if there is no other, less invasive method that would also achieve the employer's objective (typically, for example, supervision by a superior). It goes without saying that surveillance in certain areas such as toilets or changing rooms is completely inadmissible.
What are my obligations as an employer?
If an employer decides to use cameras, they must not forget other statutory obligations. First and foremost, employees must be informed in advance. The employee should be told at a minimum:
what data will be collected by the employer,
where such information will be collected,
for how long the information is collected,
who will have access to the information,
who will review the collected information,
which data will potentially be archived long-term, or
what security measures are in place to prevent unauthorised access.
The employer should also post information signs and define the detailed process of making camera recordings in an internal regulation. The review of the footage should then be immediate (usually within a maximum of 3 days), also for the purpose of promptly addressing, for example, unlawful conduct by an employee. If the employer finds nothing relevant during the review, there is no reason to further retain the footage.
The employer should also not forget to maintain records of processing activities under Art. 30 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the obligation to conduct an impact assessment under Art. 35 GDPR, or to make the entire process transparent by allowing the employee concerned to view the footage.
Covert surveillance
Employers are generally only entitled to conduct overt surveillance of employees, where employees are informed about the camera system. Nevertheless, there are exceptions that also permit covert surveillance, as confirmed by case law. The Supreme Administrative Court has, for example, already stated in its decision-making practice that covert surveillance may be justified if it was not possible to prove the monitored fact in any other way.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has taken the same position in its rulings, for example, in the cases of Köpke v. Germany and López Ribalda and Others v. Spain. In both cases, the ECHR took into account that the covert surveillance was carried out only for a certain period and was aimed at employees who were strongly suspected of committing unlawful acts. It must be added that in both cases the suspicion was confirmed, and the covert surveillance led to a conviction for the unlawful conduct.
Risk and potential problems | How ARROWS helps |
Installing cameras without a balancing test and DPIA | We will conduct a legal balancing test, prepare a DPIA assessment, and draft a bulletproof internal directive and templates for information signs. |
Illegal covert surveillance or cameras in changing rooms | We will assess borderline situations of covert monitoring according to the case law of the ECHR and the SAC and set up legal procedures to convict dishonest employees. |
Use of dummy cameras and sanctions from the labour inspectorate | We will conduct an audit of workplace monitoring and recommend legal, effective ways to protect property without the risk of penalties from the labour inspectorate. |
Long-term retention of recordings and personal data breaches | We will set up processes for secure archiving, shredding, and access rights to recordings, and prepare records of processing activities according to Art. 30 GDPR. |
What about dummy cameras?
Even the use of a dummy camera in the workplace can cause unexpected legal problems for an employer. Although such a device does not process any personal data, which means there is no breach of GDPR, dummy cameras can cause undue stress and a feeling of being constantly monitored among employees.
In this sense, the labour inspectorate has already ruled in the past, stating that the installation of a dummy camera constituted a violation of Section 302(c) of the Labour Code, which imposes on employers the duty to create favourable working conditions and ensure safety and health at work. Therefore, employers should not install dummy cameras at all for the purpose of "unsettling" employees.
Who can you turn to?
Conclusion
As you can see, operating camera systems in the workplace is a very complex and complicated issue that should not be underestimated. A poorly configured camera system can lead not only to fines from the relevant authorities but also to a disruption of working relationships, privacy, or employee trust. It is therefore always advisable to consult a lawyer before implementing any monitoring system, who will help you avoid unnecessary legal complications and set up the system in accordance with applicable regulations.
About the author
Disclaimer:
The information contained in this article is for general informational purposes only and serves as a basic guide to the issue as of 2026. Although we strive for maximum accuracy, laws and their interpretation evolve over time. We are ARROWS Law Firm, a member of the Czech Bar Association (our supervisory authority), and for the maximum security of our clients, we are insured for professional liability with a limit of CZK 350,000,000. To verify the current wording of the regulations and their application to your specific situation, it is necessary to contact ARROWS Law Firm directly (consultation@arws.cz). We are not liable for any damages arising from the independent use of the information in this article without prior individual legal consultation.