Medical clinic

Description

The DPA from Berlin has imposed a fine on a medical clinic. The clinic had installed 21 cameras in its premises for the purpose of protection against crime and property damage. This made it possible to monitor employees and patients around the clock. The clinic relied on consent given by employees and information signs as the legal basis for the video surveillance. However, the DPA concluded that the clinic could not base the video surveillance on consent, as voluntary consent in the employee-employer relationship is questionable. Also, clearly visible notices of the video surveillance do not allow the conclusion that the patients, by entering the monitored premises, legally express their consent to the observation. The DPA could not find any other evidence that would justify such extensive video surveillance of the clinic.