Facts
Company [A. AG] filed a criminal complaint with the Zurich City Police against its employee [X.] for theft. As evidence, the company offered video recordings that it had secretly installed in the cash room. The public prosecutor's office discontinued the proceedings, as the video recordings were considered to have been obtained unlawfully and were therefore not admissible as evidence. Company [A. AG] appealed against this discontinuation.Considerations
The Federal Court decided that, contrary to the view of the lower court, the video recordings in the present case did not violate Art. 26 para. 1 of the Ordinance 3 to the Employment Act (EmpO 3). The camera in the cash room was not primarily used for monitoring the staff, but rather for the protection against criminal acts by third parties. Since the employees were only recorded sporadically and for a short time in the cash room, the video surveillance was not suitable to impair their health or well-being.…