Workplace Video Surveillance in Russia: Legal Regulation & Guidelines for Employers

 

January 12, 2025

BRACE Law Firm ©

 

Currently, companies are universally equipped with video surveillance cameras through which the recording of territories, premises, and offices is conducted. This is primarily done to ensure security. However, in practice, numerous questions arise concerning the legality of such recording. Employees and visitors frequently claim violations of their constitutional rights to privacy and the processing of personal data without their consent.

This article considers:

• the regulatory legal acts that govern the conduct of video recording;
• how to implement video surveillance systems in a company to avoid claims from employees and clients;
• the measures that may be taken against employees based on video recording data.

Regulatory Framework for Video Recording in a Company

A single regulatory act that governs the conduct of video recording in public places does not exist.

• The legal regulation of video surveillance is carried out by the following regulatory acts:
• the Constitution of the Russian Federation;
• the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (the "Labor Code");
• the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (the "Civil Code");
• Federal Law No. 152-FZ dated July 27, 2006, On Personal Data (the "Law on Personal Data");
• other regulatory legal acts.

Notably, none of the specified acts establishes a prohibition on video surveillance of employees, clients, or visitors of a company. Moreover, in certain cases, conducting video surveillance is mandatory. For example, in educational and medical organizations, and at transport infrastructure facilities, video recording must be carried out in accordance with anti-terrorism security requirements established by the Government of Russia.

However, when implementing a video surveillance system, several requirements and restrictions established by the specified acts should be considered. We shall analyze them below.

Requirements for Conducting Video Surveillance

1. Video surveillance must be conducted for purposes permitted by law.

According to Article 214.2 of the Labor Code, the employer has the right to use devices, apparatus, equipment, and (or) complexes of devices, apparatus, and equipment that provide remote video, audio, or other recording of work production processes to ensure the safety of work production, and to ensure the storage of the information obtained.

Thus, the possibility of video surveillance of employees is explicitly recorded in the Labor Code. In this regard, the employer is granted this right for the purpose of ensuring occupational safety. Furthermore, judicial practice confirms the possibility of conducting video surveillance for other purposes: monitoring labor discipline and recording employee working hours, increasing labor productivity, ensuring public order, and anti-terrorism security.

We shall illustrate this with an example from judicial practice. Thus, in Case No. 33-836/2019, the court examined the reasons for introducing video surveillance in a company while considering a lawsuit from an employee who insisted on its illegality. [1] According to the Regulation on Video Surveillance of the company, which was submitted by the defendant as evidence, the video surveillance system is intended to perform the following tasks: monitoring the performance of employee duties; ensuring the safety of inventory and property; ensuring the safety of personnel at workplaces; and monitoring and organizing industrial safety in the premises. The court concluded that the employer's use of video surveillance does not violate the employee's constitutional rights to privacy, as it is carried out for purposes related to the employee's labor activities rather than to establish a personal or family secret.

2. The procedure for conducting video surveillance must be regulated in internal policies.

To legalize video surveillance, a company must develop and approve an internal policy regulating its procedure. Generally, this is a regulation on video surveillance, in which the following should be described:

• the purposes of conducting video surveillance;
• the procedure for conducting video surveillance and the locations of camera placement;
• the rules and timeframes for storing information obtained from the cameras;
• the list of persons who will have access to video materials;
• security measures against unauthorized use and loss.

It is also necessary to make the required changes to the documentation defining information security in the company and to obtain a written obligation from persons authorized to work with video recordings regarding the non-disclosure of confidential information.

The law does not require considering the opinion of a trade union committee when adopting such acts. Employees should be familiarized with the internal policy on the procedure for video surveillance against their signature. This will eliminate potential claims that employees were unaware of the ongoing video recording. If an employee refuses to sign the acknowledgment document, a corresponding certificate (act) is drawn up. This will help prove the lawfulness of the employer's actions in the event of judicial proceedings.

Employees frequently demand that the employer provide two months' notice when introducing video surveillance, considering it a change in the material terms of the employment contract.

Thus, in Case No. 33-8403/2013, an employee applied to the court with a demand to declare the change in material labor conditions illegal. [2] As established by the court, a video surveillance system was installed at the plaintiff's workplace. In his opinion, the employer was obliged to warn him of such a change in the terms of the employment contract in writing at least two months in advance. The court concluded that the presence or absence of video surveillance at the workplace is not classified by the Labor Code as a material term of the employment contract. Furthermore, the video surveillance was established lawfully, was conducted for purposes permitted by law, and the employee was informed of the ongoing video recording. The claim was denied.

Furthermore, there are rulings in which courts recognize a dismissal as illegal if it occurred because the employee refused to continue working due to a change in the terms of the employment contract, as the introduction of video surveillance does not qualify as such. [3]

Thus, as illustrated by us with examples from judicial practice, courts conclude that the law does not require notifying employees two months in advance regarding the introduction of video surveillance. It is sufficient to inform them of the video recording and familiarize them with the internal policies on this issue against their personal signature.

3. Video surveillance must be conducted openly. Secret video surveillance of employees and visitors using hidden video cameras is prohibited by Part 6 of Article 6 of Federal Law No. 144-FZ dated August 12, 1995, On Operational-Search Activity. This may be qualified as the unlawful collection or dissemination of information regarding a person's private life without their consent, entailing criminal liability under Article 137 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (the "Criminal Code").

The collection of information regarding private life is understood as intentional actions consisting of obtaining such information by any means, including the recording of information by audio, video, or photographic means, the copying of documented information, as well as by theft or other acquisition thereof. The dissemination of information consists of communicating (disclosing) it to one or more persons in oral, written, or other form and by any means, in particular, by transmitting or placing the information on the Internet. The maximum punishment under Part 1 of Article 137 of the Criminal Code is imprisonment for a term of up to two years with the deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of up to three years. The specified article also contains several qualifying features, such as the use of an official position or the commission of actions against minors, which are punished more severely.

We shall illustrate this with an example from judicial practice. Thus, in Case No. 77-496/2023, E., being the head of a diagnostic and treatment center, instructed employee S. to install video surveillance cameras in a gynecologist's office.[4] The cameras were disguised in security sensor housings, and video recording of a female patient's appointment was conducted without her consent. Applications were installed on the phones of E. and S. that allowed them to remotely view and save video from the surveillance cameras. The obtained recordings were disseminated on the Internet. By court verdict, E. was convicted under Part 2 of Article 137 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment; S. was sentenced to two years and three months of imprisonment and the deprivation of the right to engage in activities related to the installation and use of technical equipment systems for two years. Based on the victim's civil claim, compensation for moral harm in the amount of 200,000 rubles was recovered from the defendants jointly.

To confirm the openness of video recording, informational signs must be placed in surveillance areas with the inscription "Video Surveillance in Progress".

4. Video surveillance cannot be conducted in premises where work activities are not performed.

As shown by an analysis of judicial practice, video cameras cannot be installed in toilets, locker rooms, showers, and other similar premises. Furthermore, a number of courts conclude that video surveillance cannot be carried out in rest areas and other premises where employees do not work.

Thus, in Case No. 88-14171/2023, S. applied to the court with a claim against the employer to dismantle a video surveillance camera in the staff room.[5] The employer claimed that video surveillance was carried out to ensure fire safety. However, the court concluded that placing a video surveillance camera in a service room intended for rest and meals violates the employee's right to privacy.

Separately, we shall address the issue of video recording in public areas, such as halls, corridors, lobbies, etc.

Thus, in Case No. 88-16003/2020, L. applied to the court with a claim against the prosecutor's office for compensation for moral harm in the amount of 50,000 rubles.[6] In support of the stated claims, she indicated that she became aware that hidden video surveillance cameras had been installed in the prosecutor's office premises for several years. This violated her rights to privacy, as well as the right to full and reliable information about labor conditions. The court established that the video surveillance cameras were installed inside the prosecutor's office premises in corridors, the chancery, and the prosecutor's reception area for security purposes. No video surveillance cameras were installed in L.'s office. The court concluded that the employer's monitoring of the safety of subordinate employees and the preservation of property in public premises cannot be regarded as the collection of information about private life. The claim was denied.

5. In some cases, consent for video recording should be obtained.

A number of researchers of this issue believe that consent from employees and clients for conducting video surveillance must be obtained, since video images are biometric personal data requiring consent for their processing.[7] Let us examine this issue in more detail.

According to Article 11 of the Law on Personal Data, biometric personal data refers to information that characterizes the physiological and biological characteristics of a person, based on which their identity can be established. Based on this definition, data will be biometric if it:

• characterizes the physiological and biological characteristics of a person (this includes, among other things, photo and video images of a person);
• is used by the operator to establish the identity of the personal data subject.

These features must be present in aggregate. In this regard, as explained by Roskomnadzor and the Ministry of Digital Development, if photo and video images are used to recognize the faces of employees or visitors and establish the identity of a citizen, they constitute biometric personal data. [8] Conversely, video recording in a protected territory or in public places does not constitute biometric data because it is not used for human identification.

This distinction is fundamentally important for determining whether consent from employees and clients is required when conducting video surveillance. In most cases, courts support this position.

Thus, in Case No. 33-2917/2017, O. applied to the court with a claim against a museum to declare the actions regarding the installation of the system and the conduct of video surveillance illegal, and for compensation for moral harm in the amount of 100,000 rubles.[9] In support of his claims, O. indicated that the employer provided an office for the performance of labor functions in which a video camera was installed. This, in his opinion, violates the norms of the Law on Personal Data requiring consent for the processing of the plaintiff's biometric personal data.

The court concluded that the installation of a video surveillance system at the employer's premises is related to ensuring security and monitoring compliance with internal labor regulations and labor discipline, and therefore is not a source for obtaining an employee's personal data within the meaning established by the Law on Personal Data. Furthermore, the court indicated that video recording materials at the location where the employee performs labor functions are not biometric personal data, as they are not used by the employer to establish identity.

Separately, we shall address the issue of video recording in medical institutions. Federal Law No. 323-FZ dated November 21, 2011, On the Fundamentals of Health Protection of Citizens in the Russian Federation, does not contain a ban on its conduct. However, in cases where video cameras are placed in premises where medical care is provided (doctors' offices, treatment rooms, examination rooms, etc.), the requirements of Article 13 of the Law regarding the observance of medical confidentiality must be taken into account. Consequently, a patient cannot be recorded without their consent, despite the fact that medical organization employees perform labor activities in these locations.

Thus, in Case No. 1333-O, S. applied to the court with a claim against a medical organization to cancel an order establishing an audio and video recording system in a dentist's treatment room.[10] The court concluded that the purpose of installing monitoring systems is to exercise internal control over the quality and safety of medical activities. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation agreed with this position, but indicated that video surveillance is possible provided that the monitoring system is turned off if the patient does not consent to audio and video recording.

Can an Employee be Penalized for Obstructing Video Surveillance?

In most cases, when employees disagree with the introduction of video surveillance, they write complaints to the labor inspectorate or apply to the court with demands to declare the installation of systems illegal and for compensation for moral harm. However, there are cases where employees attempt to obstruct video recording through their actions. In such cases, an employee may be held disciplinarily liable.

Consider an example from judicial practice. Thus, in Case No. 33-978/2022, Sh. worked as an electric locomotive driver. [11] During the performance of his official duties, he taped over the lenses of video surveillance cameras. The employer held him disciplinarily liable for violating the regulation on the procedure for video surveillance and deprived him of a bonus in connection with the commission of a disciplinary offense. Sh. applied to the court with a claim to cancel the disciplinary sanction and for an order to pay the bonus and compensation for moral harm in the amount of 500,000 rubles. In support of the stated claims, he indicated that he was unjustifiably held disciplinarily liable. He believed that his actions lacked both unlawfulness and the occurrence of unfavorable consequences for the employer.

During the consideration of the case, the court established that the video surveillance was conducted lawfully: the employer had developed a corresponding internal policy, there were informational signs regarding the video camera installed in the electric locomotive cabin, and video surveillance was conducted to ensure safety during loading and unloading activities involving dangerous goods. Furthermore, the internal policy explicitly prohibited changing the viewing angle of video cameras, hanging unauthorized objects on the video camera, touching it with hands, moving it to another location, covering it with unauthorized objects that obstruct the camera's view, etc. The court concluded that the plaintiff intentionally obstructed the view of the video camera, thereby violating the rules for conducting video surveillance. The court recognized the imposition of disciplinary liability and the deprivation of the bonus as lawful.

In another case №33-17477/2024, involving similar circumstances, the employer was unable to defend the lawfulness of holding the employee disciplinarily liable in court. [12] The reason was that the disciplinary sanction was justified by the fact that the employee violated occupational safety instructions and technical safety requirements because he used office furniture without using safety equipment to access the video surveillance camera.

If the commission of such actions caused damage to the installed equipment, the employee may also be held materially liable in accordance with Chapter 39 of the Labor Code.

Thus, an employee may be held disciplinarily liable for obstructing video surveillance. However, the employer must comply with all the above-examined requirements for its implementation, familiarize the employee with the internal policies, and refer to them as the basis for holding the employee liable.

Can an Employee be Penalized Based on Video Surveillance Data?

Frequently, it is video surveillance data that can confirm an employee's commission of disciplinary offenses or other violations. Therefore, in practice, the question often arises: can video image data be used as evidence? Let us examine examples from judicial practice.

Thus, in Case No. 2-500/2020, Sh. applied to the court with a claim to declare an order imposing disciplinary liability for violating the ban on smoking on the employer's territory illegal.[13] He claimed that he was held liable based on data from illegal video recording. During the consideration of the case, it was established that Sh. was hired for the position of chief engineer of a restricted-access enterprise. Video recording was conducted to ensure the internal facility regime established at the enterprise, in compliance with the necessary requirements. On October 30, 2019, a report from the head of the civil defense and emergency situations staff was submitted to the General Director. The report indicated that after viewing the recordings from video surveillance cameras, he established the fact of Sh. smoking in an area of the enterprise not designated for smoking. To investigate the fact of the violation, a commission was created. The commission, having considered the report and the recordings from the video surveillance cameras, confirmed the fact of Sh.'s violation of Federal Law No. 15-FZ dated February 23, 2013, On Protecting the Health of Citizens from the Effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke and the Consequences of Tobacco Consumption, as well as the employer's order on ensuring fire safety and compliance with the internal facility regime. In court, Sh. did not dispute the fact of having been familiarized with the employer's internal policies on the ban on smoking in areas not designated for that purpose. The court concluded that holding Sh. disciplinarily liable was lawful. The claim was denied.

In another Case No. 88-13262/2024, V. worked as the head of a clinical diagnostic laboratory in a maternity hospital. [14] Upon viewing video surveillance cameras, it was established that unauthorized persons in outerwear and street shoes were repeatedly present in the "contaminated" zone of the laboratory with V.'s permission. She was held disciplinarily liable in the form of a reprimand. The grounds for issuing the order were a report from an information security specialist and a certificate (act) on the results of an internal investigation. V. applied to the court with a demand to declare the order imposing a disciplinary sanction illegal and to recover compensation for moral harm in the amount of 50,000 rubles from the employer. In support of the claims, she referred to the insufficiency of the video surveillance data for making such a decision. During the consideration of the case, the court reached a conclusion regarding the proof of the offenses and compliance with the procedure for holding the employee disciplinarily liable. The claim was denied.

We draw attention to the fact that documents (time sheets, payrolls, etc.) must also contain information about these violations; otherwise, there is a risk that priority will be given to the documented information.

Thus, in Case No. 33-10158/13, O. worked in the position of head of a park facility.[15] During monitoring of video surveillance archives, the employer established that she repeatedly left the company's territory during working hours. Based on the results of an internal investigation, she was dismissed for repeated failure to perform labor duties without a valid reason. Disagreeing with the dismissal, O. applied to the court with a claim to declare the dismissal illegal. During the court proceedings, it was established that the payment of wages to the plaintiff for the specified period was made based on the full completion of the working time norm. The court decided that the video surveillance data could not be recognized as a ground for holding the employee disciplinarily liable since it contradicted other data. The claim was granted in full.

Thus, video surveillance data may be recognized as proper evidence of an employee's commission of an offense. However, at the same time, documentary evidence must not contradict the video surveillance data.

In conclusion, it can be stated that video surveillance of employees and clients at workplaces, in production, and in public premises is recognized as lawful if the company complies with the following conditions:

• video surveillance is conducted only for lawful and pre-defined purposes related to the performance of labor duties by employees, occupational safety, ensuring public order, and anti-terrorism security;
• internal policies defining the procedure for conducting video surveillance have been approved;
• video surveillance is conducted openly, in locations related to the performance of the work process;
• employees have been notified of the conduct of video surveillance.

At the same time, it is also worth noting that, despite the increasingly wide dissemination of video surveillance, the legal regulation is clearly insufficient, which entails a large number of questions and disputes in practice.

_____________________________

References

1. Appellate Ruling of the Ulyanovsk Regional Court dated February 19, 2019, in Case No. 33-836/2019.
2. Appellate Ruling of the Altai Regional Court dated October 15, 2013, in Case No. 33-8403/2013.
3. Appellate Ruling of the Ulyanovsk Regional Court dated February 19, 2019, in Case No. 33-836/2019.
4. Resolution of the Fifth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated May 4, 2023, No. 77-496/2023.
5. Ruling of the Third Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated July 3, 2023, No. 88-14171/2023.
6. Ruling of the Eighth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated November 10, 2020, No. 88-16003/2020.
7. Zarzhitskaya L.S., The Use of Video Surveillance Systems by Employers: Legal Regulation and Judicial Practice // Magistrate, 2024, No. 9.
8. Letter of Roskomnadzor dated February 10, 2020, No. 08AP-6782; Letter of the Ministry of Digital Development of Russia dated July 17, 2020, No. OP-P24-070-19433.
9. Appellate Ruling of the Civil Case Board of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatia dated July 19, 2017, in Case No. 33-2917/2017.
10. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated September 24, 2013, No. 1333-O.
11. Appellate Ruling of the Murmansk Regional Court dated April 25, 2022, No. 33-978/2022.
12. Appellate Ruling of the Rostov Regional Court dated October 24, 2024, in Case No. 33-17477/2024.
13. Decision of the Leninsky District Court of Penza, Penza Region, dated March 26, 2020, in Case No. 2-500/2020.
14. Ruling of the Third Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated June 10, 2024, No. 88-13262/2024.
15. Appellate Ruling dated June 4, 2013, in Case No. 33-10158/13.