The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has deemed that surveillance of a man by an insurance company was not an interference with his private life.
The applicant and his wife were under the surveillance of an insurance company after he claimed he was injured in a car accident. The surveillance involved taking photographs and video recording the man in public areas, with a view to determining his claim for compensation. This was subsequent to the applicant giving contradictory evidence on the injury occurring from the accident. The surveillance showed that the applicant did not have great difficulty in performing everyday tasks.
The applicant claimed that the insurance company had breached his right to respect for privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ECtHR found that there had been no violation of Article 8 as the surveillance had taken place in public places with the objective of ascertaining mobility. The Court contended that the insurer had prevailing pecuniary rights, and interference with the applicant’s privacy was permitted in protecting these interests.
Regarding interference with the rights of the applicant’s wife, the Court was of the view that limited data was gathered coincidentally and did not constitute systematic or permanent gathering of information.
Click here for the judgement in Mehmedovic v Switzerland.