{"title":"“只是更多的监督”:欧洲人权委员会和工作场所监督","authors":"Michele Molè, David Mangan","doi":"10.1177/20319525231201274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This contribution analyses the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision on workplace surveillance, Florindo De Almeida Vasconcelos Gramaxo v Portugal (2022) App no 26968/16 (ECtHR 13 December 2022). This is a case of interest as it introduces a new surveillance technology into the Strasbourg jurisprudence: the Global Positioning System (GPS). The movements of Mr. Florindo's company car were constantly monitored by GPS for three years, during and outside working hours. We criticise the stance taken by the majority of the judges, which we summarise as a ‘just more surveillance’ approach. This approach led them to value the GPS’ efficiency in pursuing a legitimate employer aim, and failed to engage in a critical analysis of this tool and of the alternative (less invasive) means available. We argue that the Court did not effectively protect the employee's right to privacy (Art. 8 European Convention on Human Rights) through a proper ‘least intrusive mean test’, which can be found in previous ECtHR case law on the subject.","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Just more surveillance’: The ECtHR and workplace monitoring\",\"authors\":\"Michele Molè, David Mangan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20319525231201274\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This contribution analyses the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision on workplace surveillance, Florindo De Almeida Vasconcelos Gramaxo v Portugal (2022) App no 26968/16 (ECtHR 13 December 2022). This is a case of interest as it introduces a new surveillance technology into the Strasbourg jurisprudence: the Global Positioning System (GPS). The movements of Mr. Florindo's company car were constantly monitored by GPS for three years, during and outside working hours. We criticise the stance taken by the majority of the judges, which we summarise as a ‘just more surveillance’ approach. This approach led them to value the GPS’ efficiency in pursuing a legitimate employer aim, and failed to engage in a critical analysis of this tool and of the alternative (less invasive) means available. We argue that the Court did not effectively protect the employee's right to privacy (Art. 8 European Convention on Human Rights) through a proper ‘least intrusive mean test’, which can be found in previous ECtHR case law on the subject.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41157,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Labour Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Labour Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525231201274\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Labour Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525231201274","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文分析了欧洲人权法院(ECtHR)关于工作场所监视的判决,Florindo De Almeida Vasconcelos Gramaxo诉葡萄牙(2022)应用程序号26968/16 (ECtHR 2022年12月13日)。这是一个有趣的案例,因为它将一种新的监视技术引入了斯特拉斯堡判例:全球定位系统(GPS)。三年来,弗洛林多公司的汽车在工作时间和工作以外的活动都受到GPS的持续监控。我们批评大多数法官所采取的立场,我们将其总结为“只是更多的监督”方法。这种方法导致他们重视GPS在追求合法雇主目标方面的效率,而未能对该工具和可用的替代方法(侵入性较小)进行批判性分析。我们认为,法院没有通过适当的“最小侵入性平均值测试”有效地保护雇员的隐私权(《欧洲人权公约》第8条),这可以在以前欧洲人权法院关于该主题的判例法中找到。
‘Just more surveillance’: The ECtHR and workplace monitoring
This contribution analyses the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision on workplace surveillance, Florindo De Almeida Vasconcelos Gramaxo v Portugal (2022) App no 26968/16 (ECtHR 13 December 2022). This is a case of interest as it introduces a new surveillance technology into the Strasbourg jurisprudence: the Global Positioning System (GPS). The movements of Mr. Florindo's company car were constantly monitored by GPS for three years, during and outside working hours. We criticise the stance taken by the majority of the judges, which we summarise as a ‘just more surveillance’ approach. This approach led them to value the GPS’ efficiency in pursuing a legitimate employer aim, and failed to engage in a critical analysis of this tool and of the alternative (less invasive) means available. We argue that the Court did not effectively protect the employee's right to privacy (Art. 8 European Convention on Human Rights) through a proper ‘least intrusive mean test’, which can be found in previous ECtHR case law on the subject.