Privacy At Work: The Strasbourg One Thousand Bedchamber Clarifies The Police

Lorna Woods, Professor of Internet Law, University of Essex

Background

The representative of Bărbulescu concerned the extent to which employers could rails employee communications, including Internet use, when those communications powerfulness include private correspondence rather than occupation organisation communications. Here, an employer dismissed an employee for failing to observe a prohibition on the usage past times employees of function equipment for private reasons. The employee sued his employer inwards the Romanaian courts but lost, so brought a claim nether Article 8 ECHR, which protects the correct to private together with household unit of measurement life, dwelling together with correspondence. In particular, Bărbulescu objected to the fact that, to observe that he had violated the policy, his employer monitored his communications. This he claimed was opposite to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights inwards Copland v UK.  The Fourth Section of the Strasbourg courtroom held, at the laid about of 2016, that the legal province of affairs inwards Romania did non give ascension to a violation of Article 8. While the media tended to summarise the pose every bit the courtroom permitting solely unrestricted monitoring, this was non solely the pose every bit noted past times Steve Peers here. The affair was inwards whatever lawsuit referred to the Grand Chamber together with it is alongside this judgment that this banking enterprise annotation is concerned. The Grand Chamber came, albeit non unanimously, to the opposite conclusion from the Fourth Section, finding that at that topographic point had been a violation of Article 8 ECHR.  So, why has it come upward to this conclusion?

Judgment

The Grand Chamber firstly considered the applicability of Article 8 to the province of affairs inwards issue.  Re-iterating a long listing of previous cases, it emphasised that Article 8 should non endure understood narrowly together with includes both the correct to prepare relationships alongside others together with professional person activities or activities taking identify inwards a populace context. The Court noted 2 farther split points. First it commented that:

[r]estrictions on an individual’s professional person life may autumn inside Article 8 where they possess got repercussions on the agency inwards which he or she constructs his or her social identity past times developing relationships alongside others [para 71].

In this context function is of import inwards providing the possibility for individuals to prepare relationships alongside others. Secondly, spell ‘life’ inwards the listing of interests protected past times Article 8 is qualified past times the describing word ‘private’, the term ‘correspondence’ is non so limited [para 72]. The Court noted that spell the examination of a reasonable expectation of privacy has been used to produce upward one's heed the reach of Article 8, it hither re-iterated that is a important though non necessarily conclusive gene [para 73]. The Court concluded that spell the employee was aware of the ban, he was non aware of the monitoring; that but about of the content was intimate inwards nature; that he lonely had the password to the account. The Court left opened upward the enquiry of whether Bărbulescu had a reasonable expectation of privacy inwards the lite of the employer’s policy (of which Bărbulescu was aware), but so held that ‘an employer’s instructions cannot trim down private social life inwards the workplace to zero. Respect for private life together with for the privacy of correspondence continues to be …’ [para 80]. Both the correct to private life together with the correct inwards relation to correspondence were so engaged.

The Court so considered whether at that topographic point had been a violation. In this the Court was faced alongside the enquiry of whether at that topographic point was a positive obligation, given that the employer was non a populace body. The Court noted that the monitoring of the communications could non endure regarded every bit “interference” alongside Bărbulescu’s correct past times a State authorisation [para 109]. Nonetheless, the mensurate taken past times the employer was accepted past times the national courts, thus engaging the State’s positive obligations [paras 110-111]. It re-stated that the examination was that of whether a fair residuum had been struck betwixt the competing interests. The Court noted that labour police has specific characteristics which allows for a broad margin of appreciation. This is not, however, unlimited; U.S. must ensure that at that topographic point are safeguards inwards observe of the monitoring of communications. It identified a number of issues:

-          Clear advance notification of the possibility of monitoring;

-          The extent of the monitoring together with the score of intrusion, taking into occupation organisation human relationship the departure betwixt monitoring ‘flow’ of communications together with their content;

-          The justification for the monitoring;

-          Whether less intrusive mechanisms for monitoring exist;

-          The consequences for the employee;

-          Whether adequate safeguards were inwards place.

Further, at that topographic point should endure the possibility of a domestic remedy. The Grand Chamber took the persuasion that the domestic courts did non consider or did non give appropriate weight to all the issues identified [para 140]. Notably, it did non seem the employer had given Bărbulescu sufficient advance notice of "the extent together with nature of [its] monitoring activities, or of the possibility that [it] powerfulness possess got access to the actual content of his messages". The Court was also sceptical of the national courts credence of the justification for the intrusion. There was so a violation of Article 8.  There was dissent, however, on the assessment of the national courts’ approach to the matter.

Comment

The headline intelligence from this is that the Grand Chamber came to a dissimilar decision on the number of breach from the Fourth Section. It should endure noted, however, that fifty-fifty that sleeping accommodation did non propose that unlimited monitoring would endure permissible (see e.g. Steve Peers’ analysis). Nonetheless inwards purely practical terms, the Grand Chamber judgment provides a clear contention that workplace privacy cannot endure reduced to zero, every bit good every bit a listing of considerations that volition endure useful non but for national courts but also employers inwards considering policies regarding personal communications inwards the workplace. Note that this representative concerned a private employer non – every bit inwards Halford together with Copland – a populace trunk every bit employer so the considerations highlighted volition endure of relevance to all job relationships. In this, the Grand Chamber seemed to answer to but about of the concerns expressed past times Judge Pinto de Albuquerque inwards his dissent from the Fourth Section judgment regarding the factual specificity of the case. The judgment also seems to recognise the importance of function every bit purpose of daily life, an of import indicate given the blurring of boundaries inwards the ‘always on’ civilization of smart devices inwards which work-related information together with communications co-habit alongside those of life exterior work.

There are but about farther points to consider. The firstly is the reach of Article 8 together with inwards detail the ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’.  Article 8 lists a number of aspects protected: ‘private together with household unit of measurement life’ – commonly seen every bit 2 split elements ‘private life’ together with ‘family life’ – ‘home’ together with ‘correspondence’. As written, it seems that these are distinct elements yet the reasoning of the Court does non ever process them every bit separate; arguably the Court’s previous approach inwards making the affair i of a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ blurs whatever boundaries betwixt these elements together with inwards so doing, limits the reach of protection every bit far every bit ‘correspondence’ is concerned. The Grand Chamber seemed endure at to the lowest degree inwards but about regards to this point: it specified that at that topographic point is no requirement that correspondence endure private. If that is the case, however, why is the number of reasonable expectation of privacy relevant? Indeed, the Grand Chamber noted that the examination of reasonable expectation of privacy is non the endure all together with terminate all of Article 8 (see para 78). Despite this recognition, the Grand Chamber silent turned the enquiry into i of a reasonable expectation of privacy:

It is opened upward to enquiry whether – together with if so, to what extent – the employer’s restrictive regulations left the applicant alongside a reasonable expectation of privacy [para 80].

Is the Court hither suggesting that correspondence is protected past times Article 8 only when at that topographic point is a reasonable expectation of privacy? Seemingly so, yet the Grand Chamber continued to state:

…. an employer’s instructions cannot trim down private social life inwards the workplace to zero. Respect for private life together with for the privacy of correspondence continues to exist, fifty-fifty if these may endure restricted inwards so far every bit necessary [para 80].

The pose is consequently somewhat unclear. It would endure to a greater extent than straightforward were the Court to recognise that correspondence constitutes a split score aside from private life nevertheless broadly understood, together with to bargain alongside reach of Article 8 every bit a split number from that of interference together with justification.  The electrical flow pose unfortunately seems to endure embedded inwards a long describe of representative law.

Bărbulescu is distinct from previous representative police on employee monitoring inwards that it involved the State’s positive obligations. The Court has tended to adopt a dissimilar approach inwards regard to positive obligations than negative obligations. Rather than facial expression at Article 8(2) together with the tests of legitimate objective, lawfulness together with necessity (in a democratic society), it adopts a fair residuum examination inside which the State has a broad margin of appreciation. On this basis, the side-lining of the Copland ruling – which roughshod at the lawfulness phase inwards a criterion Article 8(2) analysis – is understandable.  The Court seems to suggest, however, that at that topographic point are parallels betwixt positive together with negative obligations:

[i]n both contexts regard must endure had inwards detail to the fair residuum that has to endure struck betwixt the competing interests of the private together with of the community every bit a whole, dependent area inwards whatever lawsuit to the margin of appreciation enjoyed past times the State [para 112].

It is questionable whether the derogation from an individual’s rights past times ground actors actually should endure seen every bit beingness close a fair balance, a opinion which arguably nudges the focus of protection away from human rights every bit paramount. Nonetheless, hither the Court brings inwards factors from the criterion Article 8(2) ground surveillance representative police aimed at preventing abuse of hush-hush surveillance capabilities to supply guidance inwards finding the fair balance. It is noticeable that Copland is non considered but instead the State surveillance cases of Klass together with Zakharov. 

It powerfulness endure that the Grand Chamber accepted the referral because it wished to bargain alongside failure of the Fourth Section to consider the EU Data Protection Directive, which protects against the collection of personal information without the explicit consent of an private (or justified grounds for such collection).  This indicate was highlighted past times Judge Pinto de Albuquerque. If so, the judgment fails to engage alongside European Union information protection police inwards whatever meaningful way. The Grand Chamber noted that the national courts had considered the directive, but did non consider those rules themselves. Insofar every bit the Court does get upward to international together with European standards, it specifies the ILO standards together with Council of Europe Recommendation CM/Rec(2015)5, rather than the Directive. It seems so that at that topographic point has non been whatever direct solar daytime of the month alongside the noun European Union information protection rules.

Photo credit: Aird together with Berlis LLP

Share this post