[1]
The case concerned an invasion of privacy complaint by two professors at the University of Montenegro’s School of Mathematics, Nevenka Antović and Jovan Mirković, after video surveillance had been installed in areas where they taught. They stated that they had had no effective control over the information collected and that the surveillance had been unlawful. The domestic courts rejected a compensation claim however, finding that the question of private life had not been at issue as the auditoriums where Ms Antović and Mr Mirković taught were public areas.
[2]
The Court first rejected the Government’s argument that the case was inadmissible because no privacy issue had been at stake as the area under surveillance had been a public, working area. The Court noted that it had previously found that «private life» might include professional activities and considered that was also the case with Ms Antović and Mr Mirković. Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was therefore applicable.
[3]
On the merits of the case, it found that the camera surveillance had amounted to an interference with their right to privacy and that the evidence showed that that surveillance had violated the provisions of domestic law. Indeed, the domestic courts had never even considered any legal justification for the surveillance because they had decided from the outset that there had been no invasion of privacy.
Judgement of the ECHR no. 70838/13 of 28 November 2017
Source: press release of the ECHR no. 365 (2017) of 28 November 2017
