Maître Lailler answers Giulia Fois’s questions in FRANCE INTER’s “Great good do you” program , devoted to relations between nannies and parents.
Listen to the interview (developments related to monitoring the nanny at home, from the 38th minute).
Can we monitor the nanny at home, especially by means of video surveillance?
The individual can install cameras at his home to ensure security, but he must respect the same rules as any employer, recalled by the CNIL:
Cameras should not film employees on their workstations; in the workplace and elsewhere, employees have the right to respect for their private life. The cameras must not film the employees’ break or rest zones or the toilets.
Thus, we can direct a camera to the front door or windows but not to the couch or table where usually sits the housekeeper or nanny for his work; likewise, in the baby’s room, the camera will for example be directed towards the baby’s bed, especially if the camera is used in the same way as a baby monitor, or towards the windows and doors in order to film a possible break-in.
If the images are accessible remotely, from the internet on their mobile phone for example, you must secure this access.
Can we hide a camera in the teddy bear of his child?
In a case that was tried in Lyon in 2012, a nanny had filed a complaint for invasion of privacy because the parents of the child she was keeping had hidden a tape recorder in the stuffed of their baby and registered, at the Without the nurse’s knowledge, for eight hours in a row, what was happening at home.
This surveillance revealed that the child was all day in a room in the basement of the house and was only visited by the nanny at mealtime. The parents had dismissed the childminder and lodged a complaint, which had been dismissed as there was no evidence of obvious abuse, even though the child had suffered from psychosomatic disorders, according to the lawyer. parents, because of the abandonment of which he had been the subject, from the nurse.
The court, seized with a complaint of the nurse for invasion of the private life nevertheless relaxed the parents on the grounds that the device was intended to “verify the conditions of custody of their child while they were worried about the change of behavior of it, feeding care deprivation by suspected abuse “and that” at no time they [had] meant to undermine the intimacy of the private life of the complainant even if c ‘unknowingly they recorded these conversations’ .
( source: The Point )
It will be recalled, however, that the Penal Code (Article 226-1) punishes the violation of the privacy of the life of others:
Is punished by one year of imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros, by any means voluntarily to infringe the privacy of the privacy of others:
1 ° Capturing, recording or transmitting, without the consent of the author, words spoken privately or confidentially;
2 ° By fixing, recording or transmitting, without the consent of the latter, the image of a person in a private place.
Where the acts referred to in this section have been performed in the knowledge and without the knowledge of the persons concerned, without being opposed to them, while they were in a position to do so, the consent of the latter is presumed.
The decision handed down by the Lyons Court of First Instance, in a certain context (suspicion of maltreatment and then revelation that the child was kept in isolation all day with the exception of meals), can not therefore be read as a decision that would allow parents to consider themselves authorized to permanently monitor, by recordings, the acts and actions of their nanny.
Indeed, such actions being likely to affect the privacy of the privacy of it, they can be penalized.