Background
Mr Mehmedovic was a passenger in a car involved in a road traffic accident in 2001, after which he claimed to suffer from epilepsy attacks and chronic pain in his left arm. He argued that these injuries left him unable to perform the normal daily tasks of life.
However, investigators commissioned by the insurer conducted surveillance of Mr Mehmedovic in public areas. The evidence obtained showed him carrying out everyday activities, contradicting his claims of severe incapacity. His wife appeared in a small number of photographs, though she was not easily identifiable.
Data Protection Complaint to the European Court of Human Rights
Mr and Mrs Mehmedovic complained to the Court that the surveillance breached their rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention.
Court’s Analysis
The Court noted that the relationship between an insured person and an insurer falls within the sphere of private law. Domestic courts had carefully balanced the competing interests of the claimant and the insurer, concluding that the insurer had a duty to investigate fraudulent or exaggerated claims to protect the wider pool of insured persons.
The Court held that:
-
The insurer’s interest in preventing unjustified compensation claims was a legitimate and overriding interest.
-
The limited and incidental information collected about Ms Mehmedovic did not amount to systematic or unlawful surveillance.
Judgment in Mehmedovic v Switzerland
The ECHR ruled that there was no violation of Article 8 and that the application was manifestly ill-founded. The Court emphasised that insurers are entitled to verify claims through proportionate surveillance where justified.
Significance
This decision, consistent with earlier rulings such as Verliere v Switzerland, confirms that surveillance in the context of insurance investigations can be lawful where it is limited, proportionate, and serves the legitimate purpose of protecting the collective interests of insured parties.
