Employee Monitoring in France: Geolocation and Workplace Video

In France, an employer has the right to monitor the activity of its employees, but that right is not absolute. Article L1121-1 of the Code du travail (Labour Code) sets a general limit: no one may place restrictions on individual and collective rights and freedoms that are not justified by the nature of the task to be performed nor proportionate to the aim pursued. Any monitoring measure, whether geolocalisation (vehicle geolocation) or video, must pass this test of justification and proportionality.

This page details the two most common and most tightly regulated forms of monitoring: the geolocation of work vehicles and the video surveillance of premises. It draws on the Code du travail, on the GDPR, and on the CNIL's recommendations. For the general framework of data protection in France, see our page on the GDPR in France.

Information last verified on 22 July 2026. This page presents general legal information, not legal advice.

Vehicle geolocation: a subsidiary measure

Geolocalisation makes it possible to know the position of a work vehicle in real time. The CNIL allows this measure for limited purposes: tracking the transport of people or goods, the safety of the employee or of the goods carried, optimising routes, billing a service, or complying with legal obligations.

The most important point is that geolocation is subsidiary when it comes to checking working time. The CNIL specifies that it can only serve this purpose incidentally, where such a check cannot be carried out by any other means. If another working-time tracking system already exists, geolocation cannot be used for that objective.

Case law is strict on this point. The Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) overturned a court of appeal that had accepted the use of geolocation to check working time without having verified that this measure was the only means of achieving it. In other words, the employer must demonstrate that no less intrusive alternative was available.

Finally, no tracking is allowed outside working time. The location must be switched off during break periods, the home-to-work commute, and any personal use of the vehicle, including where the employee is authorised to use it off duty. The employee must be able to turn off the geolocation during these periods.

Retention periods for location data

Geolocation data cannot be kept indefinitely. The CNIL sets different periods depending on the use made of the data, following a logic of minimisation.

The retention period is two months in principle. It can be extended to one year where the data is used to optimise routes or to prove an intervention, when no other means of proof can be mobilised. It reaches five years only where the data is used to track working time, in order to cover the legal obligations attached to that tracking.

These periods are binding on the data controller. Keeping location data beyond what is necessary for the purpose constitutes a breach of the storage-limitation principle.

Video surveillance in the workplace

A camera may be installed in a company for reasons of safety of people and property, for example to prevent theft or to protect sensitive areas. The system must serve a legitimate purpose and remain proportionate: you do not film more than necessary.

The CNIL lays down several clear rules. Cameras must not place a workstation under permanent and continuous surveillance, except in specific justified circumstances, for example a post handling high-value objects. They must not target break areas, toilets, or union premises. Sound recording is in principle not authorised and remains reserved for particular situations, triggered at the employee's initiative where an event justifies it, such as an assault.

Employees must be individually informed of the existence of the system, its purpose, its legal basis, the retention period of the images, and their rights. In companies with a comite social et economique (social and economic committee, the CSE), the CSE must be informed and consulted before the system is put in place. Hidden cameras are permitted only in wholly exceptional circumstances.

As regards keeping the images, the CNIL retains a period of one month in principle. This is a reference period recommended by the CNIL, not a ceiling set by law: the period must remain appropriate to the purpose pursued.

It is also necessary to distinguish the videosurveillance of a company's private premises from videoprotection, which films public thoroughfares or a space open to the public, which falls under a different regime and requires a prefectoral authorisation under Article L252-1 of the Code de la securite interieure (Internal Security Code). Our dedicated page on video surveillance details this distinction.

Informing employees and the role of the CSE

Article L1222-4 of the Code du travail prohibits collecting information about an employee without their knowledge by means of a system that has not first been brought to their attention. Transparency is therefore a condition of lawfulness: a hidden monitoring system in principle deprives the employer of the ability to rely on it.

The information must be both individual and collective. Each employee receives clear information about the system, its purposes, and their rights, while the CSE is informed and consulted under its powers regarding the means of monitoring employee activity. Complying with these formalities determines the validity of the system and the admissibility of the evidence drawn from it.

CNIL sanctions

The CNIL inspects and sanctions abusive uses of workplace monitoring. It can issue a formal notice, then, if the breach persists, impose an administrative fine.

One example illustrates respect for employees' rights: a company was fined 10,000 euros for refusing to give an employee their own geolocation data, requested following a road accident, and for ignoring the CNIL's formal notice. As for video, a fine of around 100,000 euros was reported against a major retail chain that had placed stockrooms under the surveillance of hidden cameras; this figure should nonetheless be treated with caution, as the decision was not consulted directly here.

Beyond the administrative sanction, there is also an evidentiary stake. Evidence gathered through an unlawful or clandestine monitoring system may be set aside by the labour court. An employer therefore has every interest in complying with the legal framework, both to avoid a fine and to be able to rely on the evidence gathered.

An employee who believes they are being unlawfully monitored can turn to the CNIL with a free online complaint: see our guide on the complaint to the CNIL. All the resources on data protection in France are gathered on our privacy law hub.