Antović and Mirković v. Montenegro
Raphael, The School of Athens (1509-1511)
Today, let’s unpack the case of Antović and Mirković v. Montenegro (2017)—a story where two university professors found themselves at odds with the watchful eyes of surveillance cameras installed in their auditoriums. The central question here? Does the presence of video surveillance in these spaces cross the line and violate privacy rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
The Facts of the Case:
In February 2011, the University of Montenegro decided to install video surveillance in seven auditoriums and outside the Dean’s office, citing the need to protect property and ensure the safety of students. However, the professors argued that the move was unnecessary and intrusive—after all, the only items in the auditoriums were some desks, chairs, and a blackboard. There wasn’t much of value to protect (§§ 6-8).
The professors took their complaints to the Personal Data Protection Agency, claiming that recording their teaching activities without consent violated their privacy rights. The Agency agreed and ordered the university to remove the cameras, stating that the surveillance was disproportionate and unlawful under Montenegro’s Personal Data Protection Act (§ 11).
Meanwhile, on 19 January 2012, the professors filed a civil lawsuit against the University of Montenegro, the Personal Data Protection Agency, and the State of Montenegro, seeking compensation for the violation of their privacy rights. They argued that the unauthorized collection and processing of their data lacked legal grounds and was not necessary in a democratic society (Paragraph 13). However, both the Court of First Instance and the High Court rejected their claim, ruling that video surveillance in a public university setting did not interfere with their private lives (§§ 14-17).
When the case went to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Court recognized a violation of the professors’ privacy rights, ruling that the surveillance amounted to an unnecessary intrusion into their professional lives (§§ 55-60).
A Divided Opinion—The Dissenters Speak Up:
But not all the judges agreed with the ruling. Judges Spano, Bianku, and Kjølbro took a different stance, arguing that university auditoriums aren’t strictly private spaces—they are more like professional venues, where professors engage with students in a structured, semi-public setting. According to the dissenting judges, the professors couldn’t reasonably expect complete privacy while delivering lectures, especially since the cameras weren’t recording audio and the footage was only accessible to the Dean (§§ 8-12).
In the dissenters’ view, the surveillance served a legitimate purpose: ensuring the safety of students and university property. They emphasized that the professors were notified about the cameras, and the recordings were erased after 30 days. To them, it wasn’t about privacy but rather oversight in a professional context.
Who’s Right?
This raises the real question: Is a university auditorium a sacred space that demands full privacy? The majority of the Court believed that even though it’s not a private room, the space still fosters intellectual exchange and personal interactions that deserve protection. The dissenters, on the other hand, saw the auditorium as more of a semi-public venue where some oversight should be expected.
What’s your take? Should university auditoriums be treated as private intellectual havens where surveillance has no place? Or are they simply public venues where safety and security sometimes call for a watchful eye?When it comes to university auditoriums, should privacy be sacred, or is surveillance justified?
Guilty Pleasures 