The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid has confirmed the existence of a violation of fundamental rights by subjecting a former worker who had previously sued the company for dismissal to unjustified surveillance.

The appeal 23/2025, filed by the defendant company against the ruling issued by the Social Court No. 36 of Madrid (orders No. 986/2024), is resolved in a procedure for claiming fundamental rights and amount.

The plaintiff, who had served for 16 years as commercial director in a transport company, he was dismissed disciplinaryly on March 15, 2024. After his dismissal, he filed a dismissal lawsuit, the trial of which was still pending when he began to suspect that he was being watched.

On August 7, 2024, the former worker filed two complaints with the National Police claiming he was being followed by a suspicious vehicle. According to him, on August 6 he took his car to verify his suspicions and, while driving aimlessly, he confirmed that a black Volkswagen Golf was following him. The next day, he saw the same car again in another area, and this time he observed a man inside apparently taking photographs of it. As they approached, the vehicle fled. On August 9, the actor expanded his complaint.

During the trial, the company acknowledged having hired a private detective agency. He alleged that the objective was to monitor another former employee who had voluntarily left in November 2023, in order to check whether he breached a non-competition agreement. However, he also admitted that he had suspicions that the plaintiff could be collaborating with him in activities contrary to the interests of the company.

It is important to note that the plaintiff never signed a non-compete agreement. The company proposed one to him, but he did not agree. Despite this, the detectives also included him in their surveillance work.

In order to justify the monitoring carried out by the detectives, the company provided various documentation at the trial.. Among them was the service contract signed with the detectives, which included authorization to follow both former workers. They also presented photographs of the actor taken on public roads, in the company of a dog, in a bar and with a minor. The company argued that there were reasonable indications of collaboration between both former workers and that the follow-up had been proportionate. But,The Social Court No. 36 of Madrid did not accept these arguments. In his sentence,fully upheld the claim filed by the former worker, declaring that there had been a violation of fundamental rights, specifically their right to personal privacy. For this reason, it ordered the transport company to pay compensation of 20,000 euros for moral damages.

The court considered that the monitoring lacked legitimacy, since it was based solely on unfounded suspicions regarding events beyond the control of the investigated worker. Furthermore, he pointed out that the surveillance invaded the actor's personal spaces, such as the surroundings of his home, and was repeated over time.All of this without complying with the proportionality test required by jurisprudence. of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights, in particular in the well-known Barbulescu case.

The defendant company filed an appeal, alleging that the surveillance was proportional, reasonable and denying that it was retaliation for the dismissal demand. He also requested to modify the proven facts to include alleged links between the two former workers, as well as specify the dates and details of the follow-up. Furthermore, they argued that the compensation awarded was excessive and not in accordance with normal judicial practice.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal and fully confirmed the sentence handed down by the Social Court. In its resolution, the Court concluded that the plaintiff did not have any non-competition agreement with the company and that the company failed to justify the need for surveillance. Furthermore, he described the monitoring as intrusive, unjustified, disproportionate and lacking a legitimate basis, clearly exceeding reasonable limits. The fact that the plaintiff came to feel fear, to the point of filing police reports, was interpreted by the TSJ as another indication of the seriousness of the business's actions. As for the compensation of 20,000 euros, considered that it was not disproportionate, and could even be classified as moderate, taking into account the sanctions provided for in labor regulations (LISOS) for conduct that violates the privacy of workers.