WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1388/99 by Freddy BLAK Video surveillance of employees
Date: 1999-09-01
Institutions: BLAK, European Parliament
Subjects: EU law, international law, labour law, protection of privacy

C 27 E/40

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.1.2000

(2000/C 27 E/046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1388/99

by Freddy Blak (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Video surveillance of employees

It has become increasingly common for employers to use video surveillance, not only to monitor
customers but also their own employees. It has even got to the point that many employees are under
surveillance outside the workplace. By hiring private detectives, employers keep their employees under
surveillance both during and outside working hours.

Does the Commission not take the view that such a practice constitutes an unacceptable infringement of
employees rights which unnecessarily casts them in a suspicious light?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(15 September 1999)

The Commission is aware of the use of technical devices such telephone-tapping and video surveillance in
the workplace for the purpose of monitoring the conduct or work performance of employees.

At Community level, there is no specific provision on the surveillance of employees in Directive 95/46/EC
of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to
the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (1).

At international level, the 1996 International labour organization (ILO) code of practice on the protection
of worker data (2) does not exclude the monitoring of workers but it clearly restricts it. Monitoring is
subject to two conditions. First, it can only be conducted if the workers concerned are informed in advance
of the employer(cid:146)s intentions. Secondly, employers cannot simply choose the method and means of
monitoring that they consider to be most suitable for their aims, but they should take into consideration
the consequences for the privacy of workers and give preference to the least
intrusive means of
surveillance.

In the case of secret or continuous monitoring, the code has taken a very restrictive approach. Continuous
monitoring is limited to cases in which surveillance is necessary in order to deal with specific problems
related to health and safety or to the protection of property. Secret monitoring is only accepted as long as
specific provisions of national law foresee it.

The Commission is currently analysing, in the framework of the protection of privacy of employee data,
Member States(cid:146) legislation on this matter.

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.
(2) Code of practice on the protection of worker(cid:146)s personal data, Doc MEWP/1996/5.

(2000/C 27 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1390/99

by Klaus H(cid:228)nsch (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Commission report on checks on the implementation of the social legislation relating to road

transport

In its report on checks on the implementation of
legislation relating to road transport
(COM(97) 698 final), the Commission notes that the level of checks and the incidence of penalties
imposed for offences vary extremely widely between the Member States. Of over 1 million offences
detected throughout the EU, Germany accounts for over 900 000.

the social