The doctrine of the Supreme Court considers that even if the recording was made without the authorization of the interlocutor , and therefore was recorded in a manner that was hidden from him and without his being warned about it, it is valid as a means of evidence .
The reasons why recording a conversation as a valid and effective means of evidence are:
The recording does not affect the right to secrecy of art. 18.3 of the Spanish taiwan business mailing list Constitution, provided that there is no interference in any of the communications by a third party unrelated to them.
Recording is simply a record of a face-to-face conversation by someone who had legitimate access to what was said.
It must be a conversation in which the person who recorded it participated.
It cannot be understood that the right not to “declare against oneself” or “to declare oneself guilty” has been violated, because this only applies in direct relations with authorities such as the judiciary or the police.
It will be lawful as a means of evidence, provided that the recorded conversation does not affect the private sphere of the life of the person recorded, and also the person who recorded the conversation must be the interlocutor and party in the procedure where that evidence is to be used.
If the recording consisted of statements made voluntarily, without the other person having been forced or obliged, the recording will be taken into account as evidence and must be assessed together with the rest of the evidence by the Court or Tribunal.
Can I record my boss?
Can an employee record conversations with bosses? Can they use it as evidence?
An employee can record conversations with his or her supervisors without their consent, but certain requirements must be met:
Let's participate in the conversation
Whether it is about work issues
That the conversation takes place in the workplace, in general.
It is not necessary to give notice, because if you give notice, you will not be able to record what you want to prove. These recordings, even if they are lawful, cannot be disseminated and can only be used in court, because if they are disseminated, the right to privacy of the person recorded would be violated.
These recordings can be provided as evidence in a trial, article 90 of the Law regulating Social Jurisdiction.
Article 90.1 LRJS: 1. The parties, after justifying the usefulness and relevance of the proposed proceedings, may use any means of proof regulated by law to prove the disputed facts or those requiring proof, including the procedures for the reproduction of words, images and sounds or for archiving and reproducing data , which must be provided by means of an appropriate medium and by making available to the judicial body the necessary means for their reproduction and subsequent recording in the proceedings.
Supreme Court Doctrine
The Supreme Court issued a ruling on November 20, 2014 establishing that the recording by an employee of a conversation with his employer (in the context of a labor dispute) does not constitute a violation of either the right to privacy or the right to confidentiality of communications.