AEPD (Spain) - PS/00178/2022

From GDPRhub
AEPD - PS/00178/2022
Authority: AEPD (Spain)
Jurisdiction: Spain
Relevant Law: Article 4(1) GDPR
Article 4(2) GDPR
Article 5(1)(c) GDPR
Article 6 GDPR
Article 83(5)(a) GDPR
Type: Investigation
Outcome: Violation Found
Fine: 20,000 EUR
Parties: n/a
National Case Number/Name: PS/00178/2022
European Case Law Identifier: n/a
Appeal: n/a
Original Language(s): Spanish
Original Source: AEPD (in ES)
Initial Contributor: Giovanna Lahude

The Spanish DPA fined a restaurant €20,000 for violating Article 6 GDPR by taking audio recordings of its employees and costumers disproportionate to the data minimisation principle of Article 5(1)(c) GDPR.

English Summary


Muxers Concept, S.L., the data controller, is the owner of a restaurant. Over the course of 2020 and 2021, the Judicial Police and the Spanish DPA received numerous complaints by employees of the restaurant, the data subjects, related to the discovery of hidden and operational audio and video recording systems in the company's toilet as well as changing and locker rooms. In the following investigation, the public entities were able to collect evidence of the hidden devices.

Following further investigations, the DPA considers it undisputed at the time of the proceedings at hand that the data controller engaged in video and audio surveillance of its employees and costumers since 2018.

While the controller informed its employees that their images, captured by video cameras, could be used to comply with labour laws, neither the employees nor the controller's costumers were informed of the hidden audio recordings.


The DPA held that the conduct of the controller infringed the GDPR by establishing three conclusions.

First, the recording of images and sounds of employees and costumers constituted the processing of personal data pursuant to Article 4(1) and Article 4(2) GDPR.

Second, the data controller's hidden image and sound recording of the employees' private spaces violated the principle of data minimisation pursuant to Article 5(1)(c) GDPR and the limits of proportionality and minimum intervention according to Article 89 of the national LOPDGDD law.

Third, the Spanish DPA held that the controller failed to consider the decision of the Spanish Constitutional Court Rec. No. 4015/1996, according to which the recording of conversations among workers or between workers and customers is not justified to ensure the employers compliance with their obligations and duties.

Therefore, the DPA concluded that the hidden image and voice recordings of uninformed employees and customers had no legal basis pursuent to Article 6 GDPR.

In determining the amount of the fine, the DPA considered aggravating factors, as stipulated in Article 83(2)(a) GDPR, and mitigating factors, as established by Article 83(2)(k) GDPR. The aggravating factors consisted of the duration of the infringement and the significant number of personal data subjects affected by the violation, whereas the DPA acknowledged as mitigating factors the data controler's status as a small business (SME) and its low turnover. As a result, the DPA fined the data controller €20,000 for violating Article 6 GDPR.


The decision of Spanish DPA on PS/00178/2022 highlights the importance of taking into account the necessity and proportionality of recording the audio of employees, especially in a circumstance where a combination of devices amounted to a system of surveillance, consisting not only of mere video recordings. One valuable resource for such analysis is the guidance provided by the Spanish DPA related to the protection of personal data in employment relation, available here.

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!

English Machine Translation of the Decision

The decision below is a machine translation of the Spanish original. Please refer to the Spanish original for more details.

File No.: PS/00178/2022


 Of the procedure instructed by the Spanish Agency for Data Protection and based on
 to the following


 FIRST: The General Police Directorate, Moncloa-Aravaca Police Station (in

 successive National Police), dated 11/16/2020 filed a claim with the
 Spanish Data Protection Agency against the entity MUXERS CONCEPT,
 SL, with NIF B87345369 (hereinafter, the claimed party or MUXERS).  The motives
 on which the claim is based are as follows:

 The National Police gives an account of the complaint made before the Police Group

 Judicial by five workers of a restaurant belonging to the claimed party,
 for the “finding of an audio recording system in the company locker room”,
 hidden in a false ceiling;  as well as the proceedings instituted for that reason.

 Provides a copy of the complaints outlined, in which the complainants declare having

 found in the employee toilet, where their lockers are also located, a
 alleged video surveillance camera and sound recorder, plugged in and on
 conditions of use (three of the five complaints refer only to a
 microphone).  They also state that they were not informed about the installation of
 These devices.

 The National Police also provides a copy of a record, dated 10/27/2020, extended to
 proceed to the intervention of a "Microphone with number Air Space AA003", and
 photographs showing the location of this device in a false ceiling.  According to
 It is stated in this Act that the interested person who witnesses the intervention of the Police
 Nacional states “that the seized microphone is owned by the company Muxers

 Concept, SL, CIF…”.

 On the other hand, on 04/20/2021, a claim filed by AAA was received
 (hereinafter, the complaining party), also directed against the entity MUXERS, in the
 stating that on 10/27/2020, in the company of other colleagues,

 discovered at his workplace (the same one referred to in the claim of the
 National Police) “the placement of audio/video recording cameras in the toilets
 corresponding to the changing rooms of the workers”.

 SECOND: In accordance with article 65.4 of Organic Law 3/2018, of 5

 December, of Protection of Personal Data and guarantee of digital rights (in
 hereinafter LOPDGDD), the claim received from the National Police was transferred
 to the claimed party, so that it could proceed with its analysis and inform this Agency in
 within a month, of the actions carried out to adapt to the requirements

 C/ Jorge Juan, 6
 28001 – Madrid 2/18

 provided for in the data protection regulations.

 The transfer, which was carried out in accordance with the regulations established in Law 39/2015, of

 October 1, of the Common Administrative Procedure of the Administrations
 (hereinafter, LPACAP) by electronic notification, was not collected by
 the person in charge, within the period of making available, understanding rejected
 in accordance with the provisions of art.  43.2 of the LPACAP on 12/20/2020, as stated
 in the certificate that works in the file.

 Although the notification was validly made by electronic means, assuming
 carried out the procedure in accordance with the provisions of article 41.5 of the LPACAP, by way of
 informative, a copy was sent by mail that was reliably notified in
 date 01/18/2021.  In said notification, he was reminded of his obligation to relate
 electronically with the Administration, and they were informed of the means of access to

 said notifications, reiterating that, in the future, it would be notified exclusively
 by electronic means.

 On 02/17/2021, this Agency received a response letter provided by the
 Respondent, stating the following:

 The system, which was installed by the entity Teknometric Biometric Solutions and New
 Technologies, SL (Teknometric) on 06/20/2018, has 22 cameras within
 of the premises, 2 exterior cameras on the facade, 1 recording equipment and 4 microphones of
 preamplified audio, without any device in the locker room or in the

 On the existence of a contract by which a third party is commissioned to view and/or
 listening to the images and/or audios, informs that there is a contract with the company
 “Stop Alarma since the installation corresponds to the video surveillance system”.  I know
 attached contract and certificate of connection to alarm center and video certificate

 check with that company.

 In relation to the purpose of the installation of video surveillance equipment, it indicates that
 Said purpose is “the access control of people, merchandise… security of the
 goods and people”.  In this regard, it notes that a written communication was made to
 the workers since the opening and the letters signed in agreement by

 each worker about the placement, its nature and its location.

 Regarding the causes that gave rise to the claim, the respondent adds that the
 rarefaction of the labor relationship caused by the reduction of working hours of the
 workers and not having collected the amounts owed by the partial ERTE, motivated

 that the workers raised the false ceiling and dragged the micro from the office (where if
 there is a microphone) and they will take him to the locker room area, not to the bathrooms, and from there all the

 Additionally, all the workers have criminally denounced the owner of the

 company, and there have been dismissals with the corresponding lawsuits in the Court
 of the Social.

 There are complaints by the company against the aforementioned workers for this

 C/ Jorge Juan, 6
 28001 – Madrid 3/18

 incident, which led to the dismissal of some of them, among others the manager who
 abandoning her functions, she admitted the entry of people outside the premises and
 he hatched a whole plan in order to ask for money by all means, as it has been.

 Attached are the complaints from the company, the letters reducing the working day, which
 explain the real reasons for this matter, which has nothing to do with the
 placement of cameras or microphones since the company has never placed them and
 appears on the location map from the first day of opening of the premises and the
 communication to female workers since August 2018.

 Therefore, according to the respondent, it is difficult for the workers to say, as
 say they were unaware of the location of the security systems when they were
 knowledgeable from the beginning of its existence, purpose, location, etc.

 For more details, the lawyer of one of the complainants has asked the company
 35,000 euros for this compensation issue for not going to trial.

 Everything along the lines that we have said of pressuring the company to compensate the
 workers or to reinstate them.

 With his response, he provides the following relevant documentation:

     .  Location map of the cameras and microphones (22 interior cameras, 2
     exterior cameras, 1 recording equipment, 4 audio microphones

     preamps).  According to this plan, prepared by Teknometric, the microphones
     they are installed at the entrance to the restaurant, in the room where they are located
     the tables and bar of the establishment (more than XX tables of different dimensions
     -between and six stalls- and 12 bar stalls), in an office and in a room of
     small size whose use is not specified in the plan.

     .  Camera location photos

     .  Provide a photograph in which the existence of an informative poster can be seen
     of the existence of the cameras, located inside the premises.

     .  Provides an invoice from the installer of the Teknometric cameras, detailing
     the installed system, made up of 22 interior cameras, 2 exterior cameras, a recorder
     video surveillance and 4 audio outputs with hard disk, and "4 hidden microphones
     preamplified”;  and technical report issued by this same entity on the
     installation of these devices on 06/20/2018.  This report indicates

     that MUXERS was informed “of the regulations and legality regarding the notice of
     their employees before the placement of audio microphones”.

     .  "Video verification certificate" and "Certificate of connection to alarm center"
     issued by the entity Stop Alarmas, SLU The latter includes a section

     called "Verification" in which the "Sequential" options are marked,
     Image” and “Bidirectional”.  The “Audio” option is not checked.

     .  10 documents dated 08/20/2018, with the label “Communication to the

 C/ Jorge Juan, 6
 28001 – Madrid 4/18

     worker of the existence of video surveillance cameras whose images can
     be used to control labor obligations and duties”.  to information

     contained in these documents is excerpted in the Fourth Proven Fact.

     .  Complaint filed with the National Police by the administrator of the entity
     MUXERS, for damage caused to the staff locker room on the date
     10/27/2020 (“the roof is broken and the microphone cables that were in the

     inside hanging”).  This document contains the manifestations of the
     complainant.  Among them, the following:

     "That the complainant states that they are microphones, that in the employment contract comes
     specified the audio and video recording, and that they themselves have signed”.
     “That at 1:20 p.m. another indicative of the National Police comes to
     seize the microphone from the locker room, all of which is reflected in a Record of
     Intervention of Effects of which they deliver a copy to the complainant”.

 THIRD: On 02/22/2021, in accordance with article 65 of the LOPDGDD,
 The claim filed by the National Police was admitted for processing.

 Similarly, the claim made by the claimant was admitted for processing in

 date 05/07/2021.

 FOURTH: The General Subdirectorate for Data Inspection proceeded to carry out
 of previous investigative actions to clarify the facts in
 question, by virtue of the functions assigned to the control authorities in the

 article 57.1 and the powers granted in article 58.1 of the Regulation (EU)
 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter RGPD), and
 in accordance with the provisions of Title VII, Chapter I, Second Section, of the
 LOPDGDD, having knowledge of the following extremes:

 .  A request for information was sent to the claimed party, by postal mail
 Addressed to the same address where the notification of the outlined transfer was made
 in the previous Antecedent, without in this case the notification could be practiced
 (it was returned with the indication "unknown").

 .  The National Police, on 12/03/2021, informed the Inspection Services that
 the police report of the Moncloa-Aravaca Police Station, has led to the opening
 Preliminary Proceedings No. ***PROCEEDINGS.1, followed up in the Court of Instruction No.
 XX of Madrid.

 .  Requested information from the aforementioned Court of Instruction on the possible
 responsibility of the claimed party in the installation of the devices of
 audio and video recording in the changing rooms and toilets used by the workers of the
 establishment to which the claims refer, no reply was received from
 said court during the period of these investigative actions.

 Thus, it was agreed to declare the expiration of the aforementioned prior actions of
 research and open new research actions, as well as incorporate the
 same the documentation that integrates the expired actions.

 The response from the Investigating Court was received on 01/26/2022, stating
 C/ Jorge Juan, 6
 28001 – Madrid 5/18

 reports that what has been done to date (01/18/2022) in the Procedure
 Abbreviated that follows under the number ***DILIGENCIAS.1, "the
 responsibility of the entity MUXERS CONCEPT, SL”.

 FIFTH: On 05/13/2022, by the General Subdirectorate for Data Inspection
 You can access the information related to the MUXERS entity in “Axesor” (“Informe
 monitor”).  (...).

 SIXTH: On 05/20/2022, the Director of the Spanish Agency for the Protection of

 Data agreed to initiate a sanctioning procedure against the MUXERS entity, in accordance with the
 provided in articles 63 and 64 of the LPACAP, for the alleged violation of article
 6 of the RGPD, typified in article 83.5.a) of the aforementioned Regulation;  and rated as
 very serious for prescription purposes in article 72.1.b) of the LOPDGDD.

 In the opening agreement it was determined that the sanction that could correspond,
 attended the existing evidence at the time of opening and without prejudice to what
 resulting from the instruction, would amount to a total of 20,000 euros (twenty thousand euros).

 The notification of this opening agreement to the claimed party, in which
 granted a term to formulate allegations and propose evidence, it was sent by means of the

 Electronic Notification Service, although it was not collected by the
 claimed within the period of availability.

 Although the notification was validly made by electronic means, assuming
 carried out the procedure in accordance with the provisions of article 41.5 of the LPACAP, with

 date 06/09/2022 a new notification attempt was made by post, being
 returned the shipment due to an incorrect address, even though it was addressed to the
 registered office of the entity that appears in the Mercantile Registry.

 Likewise, on 06/23/02022, a document was published in the Official State Gazette

 announcement of notification of the opening of proceedings.  In said announcement, it is informed
 the party complained against about the possibility of obtaining a copy of the opening agreement.

 SEVENTH: Notification of the aforementioned start-up agreement in accordance with the established rules
 in the LPACAP and after the term granted for the formulation of allegations,
 has verified that no allegation has been received by the respondent party.

 Article 64.2.f) of the LPACAP - provision of which the respondent was informed
 in the agreement to open the procedure - establishes that if no
 allegations within the stipulated period on the content of the initiation agreement, when
 it contains a precise statement about the imputed responsibility,

 may be considered a resolution proposal.  In the present case, the agreement
 beginning of the sanctioning file determined the facts in which the
 imputation, the infraction of the RGPD attributed to the claimed and the sanction that could
 prevail.  Therefore, taking into consideration that the respondent has not
 formulated allegations to the agreement to initiate the file and in attention to what

 established in article 64.2.f) of the LPACAP, the aforementioned initial agreement is
 considered in this case proposed resolution.

 C/ Jorge Juan, 6
 28001 – Madrid 6/18

 In view of everything that has been done, by the Spanish Data Protection Agency
 In this proceeding, the following are considered proven facts:

                                  PROVEN FACTS

 1. the MUXERS entity is responsible for the video surveillance system installed in the
 premises in which it carries out its activity on 06/20/2018.  It's about a
 establishment open to the public dedicated to restoration.

 2. The video surveillance system outlined in the First Proven Fact, in addition to
 video surveillance cameras, has four audio microphones
 preamplified, installed at the entrance to the restaurant, in the room where they are
 located the tables and bar of the establishment (more than 30 tables of different

 dimensions -between and six seats- and 12 bar seats), in an office and in a
 small room whose use is not specified.

 This system has a video surveillance recorder and 4 audio outputs with

 3. The intended purpose of installing this equipment is access control
 of people and goods, the safety of goods and people, as well as the
 control of labor obligations and duties.

 4. At the time of the installation of the video surveillance system, the entity MUXERS
 provided its workers with an informative document with the label "Communication to the
 worker of the existence of video surveillance cameras whose images can be
 used to control labor obligations and duties”.  According to these documents,

 the party claimed informs the worker who signs it as follows:

 “In accordance with Law 5/1999… INFORMS… (name and surname of the worker) of the
 recording through video cameras in the internal and external facilities of the company of
 which is a treatment responsibility of Muxers Concept, SL in which they remain
 stored his personal data, including his image and sound obtained, recorded and
 captured through cameras and video cameras, for the following purposes:

 I. Surveillance
 Internal and external surveillance of the company's facilities..., in order to provide
 compliance with the security operation and to prevent risks that affect the security and
 protection of people, premises and patrimonial assets as well as to denounce, when
 necessary, made before the competent authorities or meet requirements of the

 II.  Quality and work performance
 Control of the quality and labor performance of the workers as well as verification of the

 fulfillment by… (name and surname of the worker) of their obligations and duties

 III.  disciplinary sanctions
 The images and sound captured by the video surveillance cameras may be used to
 the detection by Muxers… of criminal acts or labor offenses included in the agreement

 C/ Jorge Juan, 6
 28001 – Madrid 7/18

 collective… as evidence when sanctioning

 …the technical instruments used…respect the right to privacy, within the
 legitimate exercise of the power of business surveillance.

 5. Due to complaints made by restaurant workers, the
 The National Police appeared at the MUXERS establishment and drew up a record dated
 10/27/2020, extended to proceed with the intervention of a “Microphone with
 Air Space numbering AA003”.  This document includes some photographs in which

 the location of this device is seen in a false ceiling.  As stated in these Minutes,
 the interested person who, on behalf of MUXERS, witnesses the intervention
 of the National Police states “that the seized microphone is property of the
 company Muxers Concept, SL, CIF…”.

 In its response to the claim transfer process, MUXERS stated that the
 microphone intervened by the National Police was in the office set up in the

                            FOUNDATIONS OF LAW


 In accordance with the powers that article 58.2 of the RGPD grants to each authority of
 control and as established in articles 47, 48.1, 64.2 and 68.1 of the Organic Law

 3/2018, of December 5, on the Protection of Personal Data and guarantee of the
 digital rights (hereinafter, LOPDGDD), is competent to initiate and resolve
 this procedure the Director of the Spanish Data Protection Agency.

 Likewise, article 63.2 of the LOPDGDD determines that: “The procedures

 processed by the Spanish Agency for Data Protection will be governed by the provisions
 in Regulation (EU) 2016/679, in this organic law, by the provisions
 regulations issued in its development and, as long as they do not contradict them, with a
 subsidiary, by the general rules on administrative procedures.

                         Image and voice are personal data

 The physical image and voice of a person, in accordance with article 4.1 of the RGPD, are a
 personal data and its protection, therefore, is the subject of said Regulation.  In the article
 4.2 of the RGPD defines the concept of "treatment" of personal data.

 Images and voice captured by a camera or video camera system are data
 of a personal nature, so its treatment is subject to the regulations of
 Data Protection.

 It is, therefore, pertinent to analyze whether the processing of personal data (image and voice

 of the workers in the establishment to which the claims refer, whose
 ownership corresponds to the claimed party, and of the natural persons who attend
 as customers to said establishment, open to the public) carried out through the

 C/ Jorge Juan, 6
 28001 – Madrid 8/18

 denounced video surveillance system is in accordance with the provisions of the RGPD.


 Article 6.1 of the RGPD establishes the assumptions that allow the legalization of the
 treatment of personal data.

 The permanent installation of a video camera system for reasons of
 Security has a legitimate basis in the LOPDGDD, whose explanatory statement indicates:

 “Together with these assumptions are included others, such as video surveillance… in which the legality of the
 treatment comes from the existence of a public interest, in the terms established in the
 article 6.1.e) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679”.

 Regarding the treatment for video surveillance purposes, article 22 of the LOPDGDD

 establishes that natural or legal persons, public or private, may carry out
 carry out the processing of images through camera systems or video cameras
 in order to preserve the safety of people and property, as well as their

 This same article 22, in its section 8, provides that "The treatment by the
 employer of data obtained through camera systems or video cameras
 subject to the provisions of article 89 of this organic law.

 On the legitimacy for the implementation of video surveillance systems in the field

 employment, Royal Legislative Decree 1/1995 of 03/24 is taken into account, approving
 the revised text of the Workers' Statute Law (LET), whose article 20.3
 points out:

 "3.  The employer may adopt the measures that he deems most appropriate for surveillance and control.
 to verify compliance by the worker with his labor obligations and duties,
 keeping in its adoption and application the consideration due to its dignity and taking into account

 account, where appropriate, the real capacity of workers with disabilities.

 The surveillance and control measures admitted include the installation of
 security cameras, although these systems must always respond at the beginning
 of proportionality, that is, the use of video cameras must be proportional to the purpose

 pursued, this is to guarantee the security and fulfillment of the obligations and
 job duties.

 Article 89 of the LOPDPGDD, specifically referring to the "right to privacy
 against the use of video surveillance and sound recording devices in the place

 of work” and the treatment of personal data obtained with camera systems or
 video cameras for the exercise of control functions of workers, allows
 that employers can treat the images obtained through systems of
 cameras or video cameras for the exercise of control functions of the
 workers or public employees provided, respectively, in article 20.3

 of the Workers' Statute and in the public function legislation, provided that
 These functions are exercised within their legal framework and with the limits inherent to the
 C/ Jorge Juan, 6
 28001 – Madrid 9/18


 In relation to the recording of sounds, the aforementioned article 89 of the LOPDGDD

 sets the following:

 "two.  In no case will the installation of sound recording systems or
 video surveillance in places intended for rest or recreation of workers or

 public employees, such as changing rooms, toilets, dining rooms and the like.
 3. The use of systems similar to those referred to in the previous sections for the
 recording of sounds in the workplace will be allowed only when they are relevant
 risks to the safety of facilities, assets and people arising from the activity
 that is developed in the workplace and always respecting the principle of proportionality,
 the minimum intervention and the guarantees provided for in the previous sections.  suppression

 of the sounds preserved by these recording systems will be made according to what
 provided in section 3 of article 22 of this law.”

 On the other hand, it is interesting to note that, according to the doctrine of the Constitutional Court, the
 Recording of conversations between workers or between them and customers is not justified

 for verification of compliance by the worker with his obligations or duties.
 In Judgment dated 04/10/2000 (2000/98), issued in rec.  no.  4015/1996, it
 declares the following:

 “In this sense, it must be taken into account that the managerial power of the employer,
 essential for the smooth running of the productive organization and expressly recognized
 in art.  20 LET, attributes to the employer, among other powers, that of adopting the measures that
 considers more opportune of vigilance and control to verify the fulfillment of the worker of
 his labor obligations (art. 20.3 LET).  But this faculty must occur in any case,

 as is logical, within due respect for the dignity of the worker, as we expressly
 It is recalled by labor regulations (arts. 4.2. and 20.3 LET)…

 … it should be remembered that the jurisprudence of this Court has repeatedly insisted on the
 full effectiveness of the fundamental rights of the worker within the framework of the relationship
 employment, since this cannot imply in any way the deprivation of such rights for

 those who provide service in productive organizations... Consequently, and as
 this Court has also affirmed, the exercise of such rights only admits
 limitations or sacrifices to the extent that it operates within an organization
 that reflects other constitutionally recognized rights in arts.  38 and 33 EC and that
 imposes, according to the assumptions, the necessary adaptability for the exercise of all of them...

 For this reason, the premise from which the appealed Judgment starts, consisting of

 affirm that the workplace does not constitute by definition a space in which the
 right to privacy on the part of the workers, in such a way that the conversations that
 keep workers among themselves and with customers in the performance of their work activity
 are not covered by art.  18.1 EC and there is no reason why the company cannot
 know the content of those, since the aforementioned right is exercised in the field of
 worker's private sphere, which in the workplace must be understood as limited to the

 places of rest or recreation, changing rooms, toilets or the like, but not those
 places where work is carried out...

 …Such an affirmation is rejectable, since it cannot be ruled out that also in those
 places of the company in which the work activity is carried out may occur
 illegitimate interference by the employer in the right to privacy of the

 workers, such as the recording of conversations between a worker and a
 client, or between the workers themselves, in which issues unrelated to the relationship are addressed

 28001 – Madrid 6 10/18

 work that are integrated into what we have called the sphere of development of the
 individual (SSTC 231/1988, of December 2, FJ 4 and 197/1991, of October 17, FJ 3, by
 all).  In short, it will be necessary to attend not only to the place of the workplace where they are installed

 by the company audiovisual control systems, but also to other elements of judgment (if
 the installation is done or not indiscriminately and massively, if the systems are visible or have
 been installed surreptitiously, the real purpose pursued with the installation of such
 systems, if there are security reasons, due to the type of activity that takes place in the
 work center in question, justifying the implementation of such means of control, etc.)
 to elucidate in each specific case whether these means of surveillance and control respect the right

 to the privacy of workers.  Certainly, the installation of such means in places of
 rest or recreation, changing rooms, toilets, dining rooms and the like is, a fortiori, harmful
 in any case of the right to privacy of workers, without further consideration, for
 obvious reasons... But this does not mean that this injury cannot occur in those places
 where the work activity is carried out, if any of the exposed circumstances that
 allows the business action to be qualified as an illegitimate intrusion into the right to privacy

 from the workers.  It will therefore be necessary to attend to the concurrent circumstances in the event
 specifically to determine whether or not there is a violation of art.  18.1 EC.

 …their limitation [of the fundamental rights of the worker] by the powers
 business can only derive good from the fact that the very nature of work
 contracted implies the restriction of the right (SSTC 99/1994, FJ 7, and 106/1996, FJ 4), either

 an accredited need or business interest, without its mere invocation being sufficient to
 sacrificing the fundamental right of the worker (SSTC 99/1994, FJ 7, 6/1995, FJ 3 and 136/1996,
 FJ 7)…

 These limitations or modulations must be those that are indispensable and strictly

 necessary to satisfy a business interest worthy of guardianship and protection, in a
 that if there are other possibilities of satisfying said interest that are less aggressive and affect the
 right in question, it will be necessary to use the latter and not the more aggressive and
 affecting.  It is, in short, the application of the principle of proportionality...

 The question to be resolved is, therefore, whether the installation of microphones that allow the recording of

 conversations of workers and customers in certain areas... is adjusted in the event
 that concerns us to the essential requirements of respect for the right to privacy.  To the
 In this regard, we must begin by pointing out that it is indisputable that the installation of
 capture and recording of sound in two specific areas... it is not without utility for the
 business organization, especially if one takes into account that these are two areas in which
 significant economic transactions take place.  Now, the mere utility

 or convenience for the company does not simply legitimize the installation of hearing aids and
 recording, given that the company already had other security systems than the
 hearing system is intended to complement…

 In summary, the implementation of the audition and recording system has not been in this case
 in accordance with the principles of proportionality and minimum intervention that govern the modulation

 of fundamental rights by the requirements of the interest of the organization
 business, because the purpose pursued (to give a plus of security, especially before
 possible claims from customers) is disproportionate to the sacrifice that
 It implies the right to privacy of workers (and even customers...).  This system
 allows you to capture private comments, both from customers and workers...,

 comments completely unrelated to business interest and therefore irrelevant from the
 perspective of control of labor obligations, being able, however, to have
consecuencias negativas para los trabajadores que, en todo caso, se van a sentir constreñidos
de realizar cualquier tipo de comentario personal ante el convencimiento de que van a ser
escuchados y grabados por la empresa. Se trata, en suma, de una intromisión ilegítima en el
derecho a la intimidad consagrado en el art. 18.1 CE, pues no existe argumento definitivo que

 C/ Jorge Juan, 6
28001 – Madrid 11/18

autorice a la empresa a escuchar y grabar las conversaciones privadas que los trabajadores…
mantengan entre sí o con los clientes”.

Por otra parte, el tratamiento de datos personales está sometido al resto de los
principios del tratamiento contenidos en el artículo 5 del RGPD. Destacaremos el

principio de minimización de datos contenido en el artículo 5.1.c) del RGPD que
dispone que los datos personales serán “adecuados, pertinentes y limitados a lo
necesario en relación con los fines para los que son tratados”.

Esto significa que en un tratamiento concreto sólo pueden tratarse los datos

personales oportunos, que vengan al caso y que sean los estrictamente necesarios
para cumplir la finalidad para la que son tratados. El tratamiento debe ser ajustado y
proporcional a la finalidad a la que se dirige. La pertinencia en el tratamiento de los
datos debe producirse tanto en el momento de la recogida de los datos como en el
posterior tratamiento que se realice de los mismos.

Conforme a lo antedicho, debe restringirse el tratamiento de los datos excesivos o bien
procederse a la supresión de los mismos.

La aplicación del principio de minimización de datos al supuesto examinado comporta
que el sistema de cámaras o videocámaras instalado no pueda obtener imágenes o

sonidos afectando a la intimidad de los empleados, resultando desproporcionado
captar imágenes o sonidos en espacios privados, tales como vestuarios, taquillas o
zonas de descanso de trabajadores.


                       Obligaciones en materia de videovigilancia

De conformidad con lo expuesto, el tratamiento de imágenes a través de un sistema
de videovigilancia, para ser conforme con la normativa vigente, debe cumplir los

requisitos siguientes:

1.- La personas físicas o jurídicas, públicas o privadas, pueden establecer un sistema
de videovigilancia con la finalidad de preservar la seguridad de las personas y bienes,
así como de sus instalaciones.

Se ha de valorar si la finalidad pretendida puede lograrse de otra forma menos
intrusiva para los derechos y libertades de los ciudadanos. Los datos personales solo
deben tratarse si la finalidad del tratamiento no pudiera lograrse razonablemente por
otros medios, considerando 39 del RGPD.

2.- Las imágenes obtenidas no puedan utilizarse para una finalidad ulterior
incompatible con la que motivó la instalación del sistema de videovigilancia.

3.- Se deberá cumplir con el deber de informar a los afectados previsto en los artículos
12 y 13 del RGPD, y 22 de la LOPDGDD.

En tal sentido, el artículo 22 de la LOPDGDD prevé en relación con la videovigilancia
un sistema de “información por capas”.

 C/ Jorge Juan, 6
28001 – Madrid 12/18

La primera capa ha de referirse, al menos, a la existencia del tratamiento
(videovigilancia), la identidad del responsable, la posibilidad de ejercitar los derechos
previstos en los artículos 15 a 22 del RGPD y dónde obtener más información sobre el

tratamiento de los datos personales.

Esta información se contendrá en un dispositivo colocado en un lugar suficientemente
visible y debe suministrarse por adelantado.

La información de la segunda capa debe estar disponible en un lugar fácilmente

accesible al afectado, ya sea una hoja informativa en una recepción, cajero, etc…,
colocada en un espacio público visible o en una dirección web, y ha de referirse al
resto de elementos del artículo 13 del RGPD.

4.- No pueden captarse imágenes de la vía pública, puesto que el tratamiento de

imágenes en lugares públicos, salvo que concurra autorización gubernativa, sólo
puede ser realizado por las Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad.

En algunas ocasiones, para la protección de espacios privados, donde se hayan
instalado cámaras en fachadas o en el interior, puede ser necesario para garantizar la
finalidad de seguridad la grabación de una porción de la vía pública.

Es decir, las cámaras y videocámaras instaladas con fines de seguridad no podrán
obtener imágenes de la vía pública salvo que resulte imprescindible para dicho fin, o
resulte imposible evitarlo por razón de la ubicación de aquéllas. Y, en tal caso
extraordinario, las cámaras sólo podrán captar la porción mínima necesaria para

preservar la seguridad de las personas y bienes, así como de sus instalaciones.

Las cámaras instaladas no pueden obtener imágenes de espacio privativo de tercero
y/o espacio público sin causa justificada debidamente acreditada, ni pueden afectar a
la intimidad de transeúntes que transiten libremente por la zona.

No está permitida, por tanto, la colocación de cámaras hacia la propiedad privada de
vecinos con la finalidad de intimidarlos o afectar a su ámbito privado sin causa

En ningún caso se admitirá el uso de prácticas de vigilancia más allá del entorno

objeto de la instalación y en particular, no pudiendo afectar a los espacios públicos
circundantes, edificios contiguos y vehículos distintos de los que accedan al espacio

No pueden captarse ni grabarse imágenes en espacios propiedad de terceros sin el

consentimiento de sus titulares, o, en su caso, de las personas que en ellos se

Resulta desproporcionado captar imágenes en espacios privados, tales como
vestuarios, taquillas o zonas de descanso de trabajadores.

5.- Las imágenes podrán conservarse por un plazo máximo de un mes, salvo en
aquellos supuestos en que se deban conservar para acreditar la comisión de actos
que atenten contra la integridad de personas, bienes o instalaciones.

 C/ Jorge Juan, 6
28001 – Madrid 13/18

En este segundo supuesto, deberán ser puestas a disposición de la autoridad
competente en un plazo máximo de 72 horas desde que se tuviera conocimiento de la

existencia de la grabación.

6.- El responsable deberá llevar un registro de actividades de los tratamientos
efectuados bajo su responsabilidad en el que se incluya la información a la que hace
referencia el artículo 30.1 del RGPD.

7.- El responsable deberá realizar un análisis de riesgos o, en su caso, una evaluación
de impacto en la protección de datos, para detectar los derivados de la implantación
del sistema de videovigilancia, valorarlos y, en su caso, adoptar las medidas de
seguridad apropiadas.

8.- Cuando se produzca una brecha de seguridad que afecte a los tratamientos de
cámaras con fines de seguridad, siempre que exista riesgo para los derechos y
libertades de las personas físicas, deberá notificarlo a la AEPD en un plazo máximo de
72 horas.

Se entiende por brecha de seguridad la destrucción, pérdida o alteración accidental o

ilícita de datos personales transmitidos, conservados o tratados de otra forma, o la
comunicación o acceso no autorizado a dichos datos.

9.- Cuando el sistema esté conectado a una central de alarma, únicamente podrá ser
instalado por una empresa de seguridad privada que reúna los requisitos

contemplados en el artículo 5 de la Ley 5/2014 de Seguridad Privada, de 4 de abril.

La Agencia Española de Protección de Datos ofrece a través de su página web
[] acceso a:

     . la legislación en materia de protección de datos personales, incluyendo el RGPD
    y la LOPDGDD (apartado “Informes y resoluciones” / “normativa”),
     . la Guía sobre el uso de videocámaras para seguridad y otras finalidades,
     . la Guía para el cumplimiento del deber de informar (ambas disponibles en el
    apartado “Guías y herramientas”).

También resulta de interés, en caso de realizar tratamientos de datos de bajo riesgo, la
herramienta gratuita Facilita (en el apartado “Guías y herramientas”), que, mediante
unas preguntas concretas, permite valorar la situación del responsable respecto del
tratamiento de datos personales que lleva a cabo, y en su caso, generar diversos
documentos, cláusulas informativas y contractuales, así como un anexo con medidas

de seguridad orientativas consideradas mínimas.


                                Infracción administrativa

La reclamación se basa en la presunta ilicitud del sistema de videovigilancia instalado
por la parte reclamada en el local donde desarrolla su actividad empresarial, en

relación con la grabación de sonidos.
 C/ Jorge Juan, 6
28001 – Madrid 14/18

No resulta controvertido en este caso el hecho de que la parte reclamada es la titular y
responsable del sistema de videovigilancia denunciado y, por tanto, la responsable de

los tratamientos de datos que conlleva la utilización de dicho sistema. Y tampoco el
hecho de que entre los tratamientos de datos realizados se contempla la recogida y
almacenamiento de datos personales relativos a la voz de empleados y clientes.

Consta probado en las actuaciones, asimismo, que dicha instalación se realiza con
fines de seguridad y control laboral.

Por ese motivo, con fecha 20/08/2018, la parte reclamada comunicó a los trabajadores
afectados, entre los que figura la parte reclamante, la instalación del sistema de
videovigilancia, con captación y grabación de imágenes y sonido, “con la finalidad de
dar cumplimiento al operativo de seguridad y para prevenir riesgos que afecten a la

seguridad y protección de las personas, locales y bienes patrimoniales” y para el
“control de la calidad y rendimiento laboral de los trabajadores así como verificación
del cumplimiento… de sus obligaciones y deberes laborales”.

La parte reclamada no aporta justificación suficiente sobre estos tratamientos de datos
(grabación de sonidos). No tiene en cuenta la parte reclamada los limites previstos en

el artículo 20.3 de la Ley del Estatuto de los Trabajadores (LET); lo establecido en el
artículo 89.3 de la LOPDGDD, que admite la grabación de sonidos únicamente cuando
resulten relevantes los riesgos y respetando los principios de proporcionalidad e
intervención mínima; ni la doctrina del Tribunal Constitucional, ya expresada, según la
cual la grabación de conversaciones entre trabajadores o entre éstos y clientes no se

justifica por la verificación del cumplimiento por el trabajador de sus obligaciones o

El citado artículo 89 de la LOPDGDD, más allá de la prohibición de utilizar estos
sistemas de videovigilancia y grabación de sonidos en “lugares destinados al

descanso o esparcimiento de los trabajadores o los empleados públicos, tales como
vestuarios, aseos, comedores y análogos”, expresamente y con carácter general,
establece el sometimiento de tales sistemas al marco legal y con los límites inherentes
al mismo, ya señalados anteriormente. Ello implica que no puede entenderse como
legítimo, sin más condición, cualquier sistema que no incluya aquellos espacios.

En este caso, además, consta que uno de los micrófonos se instaló en el office
utilizado por los trabajadores. Según ha quedado probado, el sistema incluyó la
instalación de cuatro micrófonos “ocultos”: en el acceso al restaurante, en la sala
donde están ubicadas las mesas y barra del establecimiento (más de 30 mesas de
distintas dimensiones -entre y seis puestos- y 12 puestos de barra), en un office y en

una estancia de pequeño tamaño cuyo uso no está especificado en el plano. Por tanto,
resulta que alguno de estos dispositivos podría vulnerar la prohibición de instalar
“sistemas de grabación de sonidos… en lugares destinados al descanso o
esparcimiento de los trabajadores…, tales como vestuarios, aseos, comedores y
análogos”, establecida en el citado artículo 89 de la LOPDGDD.

Por otra parte, en la información facilitada a los trabajadores se hace referencia a la
“facultada de vigilancia empresarial”. Sobre esta cuestión, relativa a las posibilidades
en cuanto a la adopción de medidas de vigilancia que atribuye al empresario su poder

 C/ Jorge Juan, 6
28001 – Madrid 15/18

de dirección, interesa destacar algunos de los aspectos declarados en la Sentencia del

Tribunal Constitucional de fecha 10/04/2000, reseñada en el Fundamento de Derecho

“…esa facultad ha de producirse en todo caso, como es lógico, dentro del debido respeto a la
dignidad del trabajador, como expresamente nos lo recuerda la normativa laboral (arts. 4.2.ey

20.3 LET)…”.

“Debe por ello rechazarse… que las conversaciones que mantengan los trabajadores entre sí y
con los clientes en el desempeño de su actividad laboral no están amparadas por el art.

“…su limitación [de los derechos fundamentales del trabajador] por parte de las facultades
empresariales sólo puede derivar bien del hecho de que la propia naturaleza del trabajo
contratado implique la restricción del derecho (SSTC 99/1994, FJ 7, y 106/1996, FJ 4), bien de

una acreditada necesidad o interés empresarial, sin que sea suficiente su mera invocación para
sacrificar el derecho fundamental del trabajador (SSTC 99/1994, FJ 7, 6/1995, FJ 3 y 136/1996,
FJ 7)…

Estas limitaciones o modulaciones tienen que ser las indispensables y estrictamente

“…la mera utilidad o conveniencia para la empresa no legitima sin más la instalación de los

aparatos de audición y grabación, habida cuenta de que la empresa ya disponía de otros
sistemas de seguridad que el sistema de audición pretende complementar…”.

Tampoco explica qué puede aportar la grabación de conversaciones entre los
trabajadores, entre sí, entre los trabajadores y los clientes, o de éstos últimos entre sí,

en orden a acreditar aquellas circunstancias, que no aporte la sola grabación de

Asimismo, Interesa destacar nuevamente que la grabación de sonidos incluye la voz

de clientes de la parte reclamada (dos dispositivos instalados en la zona de clientes,
en el acceso al restaurante y en la sala donde están ubicadas las mesas y barra del
establecimiento), los cuales no tienen conocimiento de la existencia de los micrófonos.

En consecuencia, en este caso, se entiende desproporcionada la captación de la voz

tanto de los trabajadores como de clientes de la parte reclamada para la función de
videovigilancia pretendida, para el control del cumplimiento por los trabajadores de sus
obligaciones y deberes laborales. Se tiene en cuenta que la grabación de voz supone
una mayor intromisión en la intimidad.

Se considera que la parte reclamada realizó tratamientos de datos sin disponer de
base legítima, vulnerando lo establecido en el artículo 6 del RGPD, por lo que podrían
suponer la comisión de una infracción tipificada en el artículo 83.5 del RGPD, que

dispone lo siguiente:

“Las infracciones de las disposiciones siguientes se sancionarán, de acuerdo con el apartado
2, con multas administrativas de 20 000 000 EUR como máximo o, tratándose de una empresa,
de una cuantía equivalente al 4 % como máximo del volumen de negocio total anual global del
ejercicio financiero anterior, optándose por la de mayor cuantía:

a) los principios básicos para el tratamiento, incluidas las condiciones para el consentimiento a

 C/ Jorge Juan, 6
28001 – Madrid 16/18

tenor de los artículos 5, 6, 7 y 9;”.

A efectos del plazo de prescripción de las infracciones, la infracción señalada en el

párrafo anterior se considera muy grave conforme al artículo 72.1.b) de la LOPDGDD,
que establece que:

“En función de lo que establece el artículo 83.5 del Reglamento (UE) 2016/679 se consideran
muy graves y prescribirán a los tres años las infracciones que supongan una vulneración
sustancial de los artículos mencionados en aquel y, en particular, las siguientes:

b) El tratamiento de datos personales sin que concurra alguna de las condiciones de licitud del

tratamiento establecidas en el artículo 6 del Reglamento (UE) 2016/.79”



El artículo 58.2 del RGPD establece:

“Cada autoridad de control dispondrá de todos los siguientes poderes correctivos
indicados a continuación:
d) ordenar al responsable o encargado de tratamiento que las operaciones de
 treatment comply with the provisions of this Regulation, where appropriate,

 in a certain way and within a specified period;
i) imponer una multa administrativa con arreglo al artículo 83, además o en lugar de
las medidas mencionadas en el presente apartado, según las circunstancias de cada
caso particular”.

Según lo dispuesto en el artículo 83.2 del RGPD, la medida prevista en el artículo
58.2.d) del citado Reglamento es compatible con la sanción consistente en multa

Con respecto a las infracciones del artículo 6 del RGPD, atendiendo a los hechos
expuestos, se considera que la sanción que correspondería imponer es de multa

La multa que se imponga deberá ser, en cada caso individual, efectiva, proporcionada
y disuasoria, conforme a lo establecido en el artículo 83.1 del RGPD.

 In order to determine the administrative fine to be imposed, the
previsiones del artículo 83.2 del RGPD y del artículo 76 de la LOPDGDD, respecto al

apartado k) del citado artículo 83.2 RGPD.

En este caso, se consideran las siguientes circunstancias como agravantes:

 . Artículo 83.2.a) del RGPD: “a) la naturaleza, gravedad y duración de la infracción,

teniendo en cuenta la naturaleza, alcance o propósito de la operación de tratamiento
de que se trate así como el número de interesados afectados y el nivel de los daños y

 C/ Jorge Juan, 6
28001 – Madrid 17/18

perjuicios que hayan sufrido”.

     . La duración de la infracción, considerando que la instalación de los dispositivos

    de captación y grabación de voz tuvo lugar en agosto de 2018.

     . El número de interesados: la presunta infracción afecta a todos los trabajadores
    y clientes de la parte reclamada.

Por otra parte, se estima que concurren como atenuantes las circunstancias


 . Artículo 76.2.b) de la LOPDGDD: “b) La vinculación de la actividad del infractor con la
realización de tratamientos de datos personales”.
La escasa vinculación de la parte reclamada con la realización de tratamientos de

datos personales, considerando la actividad que desarrolla.

 . Artículo 83.2.k) del RGPD: “k) cualquier otro factor agravante o atenuante aplicable a
las circunstancias del caso, como los beneficios financieros obtenidos o las pérdidas
evitadas, directa o indirectamente, a través de la infracción”.
La condición de pequeña empresa de la parte reclamada y su volumen de negocio.


Considerando los factores expuestos, la valoración que alcanza la multa por la
Infracción del artículo 6 del RGPD es de 20.000 euros (veinte mil euros).

 Therefore, in accordance with the applicable legislation and having assessed the criteria for
 graduation of sanctions whose existence has been proven,
 the Director of the Spanish Data Protection Agency RESOLVES:

infracción del Artículo 6 del RGPD, tipificada en el Artículo 83.5.a) del RGPD, una
multa de 20.000 euros (veinte mil euros).

SEGUNDO: NOTIFICAR la presente resolución a MUXERS CONCEPT, SL

 THIRD: Warn the sanctioned party that he must make the imposed sanction effective once
 Once this resolution is enforceable, in accordance with the provisions of the
art. 98.1.b) de la ley 39/2015, de 1 de octubre, del Procedimiento Administrativo
 Common Public Administrations (hereinafter LPACAP), within the payment term

 voluntary established in art.  68 of the General Collection Regulations, approved
 by Royal Decree 939/2005, of July 29, in relation to art.  62 of Law 58/2003,
de 17 de diciembre, mediante su ingreso, indicando el NIF del sancionado y el número
 of procedure that appears in the heading of this document, in the account
 restricted number ES00 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000, opened on behalf of the Agency

 Spanish Data Protection in the banking entity CAIXABANK, SA.  In case
 Otherwise, it will be collected in the executive period.

 Received the notification and once executed, if the date of execution is
 between the 1st and 15th of each month, both inclusive, the term to make the payment

 C/ Jorge Juan, 6
28001 – Madrid 18/18

 voluntary will be until the 20th day of the following month or immediately after, and if
 between the 16th and last day of each month, both inclusive, the payment term

 It will be until the 5th of the second following month or immediately after.

 In accordance with the provisions of article 50 of the LOPDGDD, this
 Resolution will be made public once it has been notified to the interested parties.

 Against this resolution, which puts an end to the administrative procedure in accordance with art.  48.6 of the
 LOPDGDD, and in accordance with the provisions of article 123 of the LPACAP, the
 Interested parties may optionally file an appeal for reconsideration before the
 Director of the Spanish Agency for Data Protection within a month from

 counting from the day following the notification of this resolution or directly
recurso contencioso administrativo ante la Sala de lo Contencioso-administrativo de la
 National Court, in accordance with the provisions of article 25 and section 5 of
 the fourth additional provision of Law 29/1998, of July 13, regulating the

 Contentious-administrative jurisdiction, within a period of two months from the
 day following the notification of this act, as provided in article 46.1 of the
 aforementioned Law.

 Finally, it is pointed out that in accordance with the provisions of art.  90.3 a) of the LPACAP,

 may provisionally suspend the firm resolution in administrative proceedings if the
 The interested party expresses his intention to file a contentious-administrative appeal.
 If this is the case, the interested party must formally communicate this fact by
 writing addressed to the Spanish Agency for Data Protection, presenting it through
 Electronic Register of the Agency [

 web/], or through any of the other registers provided for in art.  16.4 of the
 aforementioned Law 39/2015, of October 1. También deberá trasladar a la Agencia la
 documentation proving the effective filing of the contentious appeal-
 administrative.  If the Agency was not aware of the filing of the appeal

 contentious-administrative within a period of two months from the day following the
 notification of this resolution would end the precautionary suspension.

 Sea Spain Marti
 Director of the Spanish Data Protection Agency

 C/ Jorge Juan, 6
 28001 – Madrid