Protection against the abuse of secret surveillance in insurance disputes

...given the overall lack of clarity of domestic law provisions on the matter, the Court is not satisfied that they were sufficient to constitute adequate and effective guarantees against abuse.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, January 2017

Background

In 1995, Savjeta Vukota-Bojić suffered injuries to her head and spine when she was hit by a motorcycle.

Doctors had different opinions about whether she would be able to work again.

Before the accident, Savjeta had been a hairdresser. Like all working people in Switzerland, she had compulsory accident cover. But Savjeta’s insurance company (a public body) wanted her to have further tests. Medical examiners found that she was fully able to work.

There followed a legal dispute between Savjeta and the insurance company lasting many years, leading to court dates and yet more medical tests.

During the dispute, the company hired private detectives to secretly follow Savjeta after she refused to undergo a test. A report was compiled about her activities. The company initially denied Savjeta benefits, partly because of what was written in the report.

Savjeta felt violated when she learned about the secret filming. She wanted compensation and for the surveillance case file to be destroyed.

In 2010, a Swiss court ruled that the surveillance had been lawful, and the file was valid evidence.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The European court ruled that Switzerland breached Savjeta’s right to privacy because Swiss law did not include sufficient safeguards against the abuse of secret surveillance measures.

The court awarded Savjeta €23,000 in non-pecuniary damages and costs and expenses.

Follow-up

In response to the European court’s judgment, Switzerland brought in a new law in 2019 better regulating secret surveillance activities on behalf of insurance companies.

The new law includes a list of circumstances which justify surveillance, a list of methods that are subject to court approval, the maximum period of time involved, an obligation to tell the person concerned that they have been monitored and general rules for the storage and destruction of data collected.

Additional information

Themes:

Соответствующие примеры

Обеспечение более эффективной защиты частной жизни после установления слежки за государственной служащей с целью проведения проверки безопасности НАТО

Грасинда Мария Антунес Роша никогда бы не согласилась на новую работу, если бы знала, что за ней будут следить с целью проведения проверки безопасности. Европейский суд по правам человека постановил, что власти Португалии нарушили право заявительницы на неприкосновенность частной жизни. В ответ на постановление ЕСПЧ Португалия приняла новый закон, позволяющий пострадавшим легче...

Themes: Право на неприкосновенность частной жизни

Португалия

Укрепление закона в области защиты частной жизни после прослушивания телефонных переговоров адвоката

Власти прослушали телефон адвоката Ганса Коппа и конфиденциальные разговоры. Страсбургский суд постановил, что швейцарское законодательство не устанавливает должной границы перехвата конфиденциальных разговоров властями. Это нарушило право Г. Коппа на уважение частной жизни, а затем привело к укреплению юридической защиты.