Facts
The police had installed video surveillance in the premises of A. GmbH to investigate a theft suspicion against an employee, X. The video recordings were made without the knowledge and consent of the employees. The Federal Court ruled that this constitutes a coercive measure under criminal procedure, which should have been ordered by the public prosecutor's office and approved by the coercive measures court. Since this did not occur, the video recordings are absolutely inadmissible.Considerations
The Federal Court states that the police video surveillance interferes with the private sphere of the employees and thus constitutes a coercive measure within the meaning of Art. 196 CrimPC. Pursuant to Art. 280 lit. b CrimPC, the public prosecutor's office should have ordered the video surveillance and the coercive measures court should have approved it (Art. 281 para. 4 in conjunction with Art. 272 para. 1 CrimPC). Since this did not occur, the video recordings are absolutely inadmissible under Art. 281 para. 4 in conjunction with Art. 277 para. 2 in conjunction with Art. 141 para. 1 CrimPC.
The Federal Court upholds the appeal and remands the case to the lower court for re-examination. The lower court must examine, without considering the inadmissible video recordings, whether…