David Mangan

This contribution analyses the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision on workplace surveillance, Florindo De Almeida Vasconcelos Gramaxo v Portugal (2022) App no 26968/16 (ECtHR 13 December 2022). This is a case of interest as it introduces a new surveillance technology into the Strasbourg jurisprudence: the Global Positioning System (GPS). The movements of Mr. Florindo's company car were constantly monitored by GPS for three years, during and outside working hours. We criticise the stance taken by the majority of the judges, which we summarise as a ‘just more surveillance’ approach. This approach led them to value the GPS’ efficiency in pursuing a legitimate employer aim, and failed to engage in a critical analysis of this tool and of the alternative (less invasive) means available. We argue that the Court did not effectively protect the employee's right to privacy (Art. 8 European Convention on Human Rights) through a proper ‘least intrusive mean test’, which can be found in previous ECtHR case law on the subject.