legally<\/a> video surveillance, much like Article L2323-32 of the Labor Code, which mandates specific disclosure obligations. Recorded footage may only be accessed by previously designated personnel, and such images may not be retained for more than one month.<\/p>\nThe company faces a dual reporting obligation<\/h2>\n
This legal framework directly results in a dual obligation of disclosure for the company. First, any CEO wishing to install a video surveillance system must inform employee representatives and the works council, as stipulated by Articles L2323-32 and L432-1 of the Labor Code. Second, it is also essential to notify the public of the existence of the video surveillance; this must be done via a sign located at the company entrance, which must state the reasons for its use, the procedures for accessing and rectifying footage of filmed individuals, and information regarding the person responsible for managing and accessing the video surveillance platform.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Nowadays, many companies are installing video surveillance systems within their premises. It must be said that these types of systems offer numerous advantages, as recorded footage can be viewed on-site or from a specific remote location, and the recording process itself is very straightforward. The issue arises from the fact that companies tend to use such surveillance to spy on their employees, and the relevant case law is extensive, reminding us that video surveillance can only be used in compliance with extremely strict laws in this field. Indeed, in several recent cases, companies have been sanctioned by the Commission nationale de l\u2019informatique et des libert\u00e9s (CNIL) for placing cameras in inappropriate locations, such as restrooms or employee locker rooms.<\/p>\n
Specific cases justifying the use of video surveillance in a company
\nA principle of proportionality must be applied when a company decides to install a video surveillance system. Specifically, the company must justify the necessity of the installation; this may be done to ensure the security of the premises and personnel, or to prevent vandalism and assaults. However, this installation must be proportionate to the interests it intends to protect and must not turn into a literal spying station for employees. Thus, it is impossible to install a camera that films an employee throughout their entire working activity; conversely, it is permissible to position a camera above a cash register or in any sensitive areas (handling cash, dangerous products, etc.).<\/p>\n
The legal framework surrounding the implementation of video surveillance
\nThe regulations surrounding the use of video surveillance in the workplace are numerous, and the CNIL is very vigilant regarding compliance with these rules. The fines imposed can be heavy, and the company’s CEO may face criminal liability for recording images of a person against their will in a private setting. The Law of January 6, 1978, relating to information technology and liberties, provides the legal framework for video surveillance, as does the Labor Code in Article L2323-32, which stipulates information obligations. Recorded images may only be viewed by previously designated individuals, and such footage cannot be stored for more than one month.<\/p>\n
The company has a dual obligation to inform
\nA direct consequence of this legal framework is that the company has a dual obligation to provide information. First, a company executive wishing to install a video surveillance system must inform employee representatives and the works council, as provided for in Articles L2323-32 and L432-1 of the Labor Code. Second, it is also essential to inform the public of the existence of the video surveillance; this must be done via a sign located at the company entrance, which must state the reasons for its use, the procedures for accessing and correcting the images of filmed individuals, as well as information regarding the person responsible for managing and accessing the video surveillance platform.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":779,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[225,226],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1815390","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-business","category-management"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newzyexecutive.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1815390","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newzyexecutive.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newzyexecutive.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newzyexecutive.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newzyexecutive.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1815390"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.newzyexecutive.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1815390\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1815395,"href":"https:\/\/www.newzyexecutive.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1815390\/revisions\/1815395"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newzyexecutive.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/779"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newzyexecutive.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1815390"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newzyexecutive.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1815390"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newzyexecutive.fr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1815390"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}