2017/20 Data gathered by GPS as a basis for disciplinary dismissal (PT)

Distance-related data gathered by GPS and data reported manually by the employee (a sales representative at a pharmaceutical company) are valid and admissible sources of evidence in the context of a disciplinary dismissal procedure. This decision is innovative in that it contradicts the usual view of the Supreme Court of Justice on the scope of ‘distance-controlled supervision’ for the purposes of assessment of employee conduct.

2017/22 Use of ex-employee’s emails and files found on company PC admissible (GR)

The Supreme Court ruled that evidence of wrongdoing obtained by a company against two former executives was admissible in court, as it was legitimate that the company should have the opportunity to defend its right to free competition. In such cases, the executives’ right to privacy of communication should be balanced against the company’s freedom of competition.

2017/22 Use of ex-employee’s emails and files found on company PC admissible (GR)

The Supreme Court ruled that evidence of wrongdoing obtained by a company against two former executives was admissible in court, as it was legitimate that the company should have the opportunity to defend its right to free competition. In such cases, the executives’ right to privacy of communication should be balanced against the company’s freedom of competition.

ECtHR 26 January 2017, application no. 42788/06, Right to fair hearing and right to respect for private and family life

ECtHR concludes that there has been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) in the case of retention and disclosure of an employee’s mental-health data and its use in deciding on employees’ applications for promotion.

ECtHR 26 January 2017, application no. 42788/06, Right to fair hearing and right to respect for private and family life

ECtHR concludes that there has been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) in the case of retention and disclosure of an employee’s mental-health data and its use in deciding on employees’ applications for promotion.

2017/21 Legal rules for employers for monitoring employees in Slovakia (SK)

An employer can monitor an employee’s emails provided it has made it clear beforehand that it might do so. It is permissible for the employer to prohibit employees from using its electronical equipment for private use, but if the employer is going to check whether this rule was being complied with, it needs to have a significant reason to do so and must respect the principles of legality legitimacy and proportionality.

2017/21 Legal rules for employers for monitoring employees in Slovakia (SK)

An employer can monitor an employee’s emails provided it has made it clear beforehand that it might do so. It is permissible for the employer to prohibit employees from using its electronical equipment for private use, but if the employer is going to check whether this rule was being complied with, it needs to have a significant reason to do so and must respect the principles of legality legitimacy and proportionality.

2016/46 No expectation of privacy in material obtained during a criminal investigation (UK)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) has upheld an Employment Tribunal’s (‘ET’s’) finding that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) was not engaged when an employer used private material obtained by the police during a criminal investigation as part of an internal disciplinary investigation into one of its employees. This material had been taken from the claimant’s phone by the police, who then provided it to the employer (stating that it could be used for the purposes of their investigation). The facts in this case were unusual. Whether or not an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy in similar circumstances will depend on all the facts, including the source of the information, whether the employee has expressly objected to its use, and whether the relevant conduct took place in, or was brought into, the workplace.

2016/46 No expectation of privacy in material obtained during a criminal investigation (UK)

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘EAT’) has upheld an Employment Tribunal’s (‘ET’s’) finding that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) was not engaged when an employer used private material obtained by the police during a criminal investigation as part of an internal disciplinary investigation into one of its employees. This material had been taken from the claimant’s phone by the police, who then provided it to the employer (stating that it could be used for the purposes of their investigation). The facts in this case were unusual. Whether or not an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy in similar circumstances will depend on all the facts, including the source of the information, whether the employee has expressly objected to its use, and whether the relevant conduct took place in, or was brought into, the workplace.

Case C-73/16. Data protection

Does Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, under which...