Case C-73/16. Data protection

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

Case C-73/16. Data protection

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

2016/32 Window sticker sufficient to allow evidence collected by surveillance camera (SP)

A decision issued by the Constitutional Court on 3 March 2016 upholds a High Court decision on whether evidence obtained through video surveillance at the work place without previously informing the employee or the works council of the recording infringes employees’ privacy. The existence of cameras in the workplace was only made known via a sticker on the shop window, but the Constitutional Court found that it provided sufficient information to employees. The Court found that, as there was a prior suspicion of theft by the employee, temporary recording of the cashier area was lawful and did not require prior consent. The judgment sets out the criteria to be used to determine a fair balance between the competing interests of employee privacy and the employer’s right to compliance.

2016/32 Window sticker sufficient to allow evidence collected by surveillance camera (SP)

A decision issued by the Constitutional Court on 3 March 2016 upholds a High Court decision on whether evidence obtained through video surveillance at the work place without previously informing the employee or the works council of the recording infringes employees’ privacy. The existence of cameras in the workplace was only made known via a sticker on the shop window, but the Constitutional Court found that it provided sufficient information to employees. The Court found that, as there was a prior suspicion of theft by the employee, temporary recording of the cashier area was lawful and did not require prior consent. The judgment sets out the criteria to be used to determine a fair balance between the competing interests of employee privacy and the employer’s right to compliance.

ECtHR 12 January 2016, application 61496/08. (Bărbulescu), Fundamental Rights

An employee was dismissed for using a professional Yahoo account privately in breach of his...

ECtHR 12 January 2016, application 61496/08. (Bărbulescu), Fundamental Rights

An employee was dismissed for using a professional Yahoo account privately in breach of his...

2015/50 Alcohol tests require approval by works council (AT)

The Austrian federal railways introduced breathalyser testing on their employees in order to monitor compliance with their zero-alcohol policy. However, as such a measure was held to impact on the employees’ “human dignity”, it was subject to the works council’s approval. As that approval had not been given, the measure was unlawful. 

<p><strong>2015/50 Alcohol tests require approval by works council (AT)</strong></p>

The Austrian federal railways introduced breathalyser testing on their employees in order to monitor compliance with their zero-alcohol policy. However, as such a measure was held to impact on the employees’ “human dignity”, it was subject to the works council’s approval. As that approval had not been given, the measure was unlawful. 

2014/50 Testing for drug use subject to strict conditions (LU)

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits an employer from organising drug detection tests unless the testing is justified by the hazardous nature of the employee’s job or justified by a serious incident. The tests may only be carried out by a medical doctor, never by the employer itself. In order to protect the employee’s private life, the employer cannot have direct access to the results of the tests, but if they confirm the employer’s suspicions, it can be given access to the doctor’s opinion regarding the employee’s (in)ability to perform his work.

2014/50 Testing for drug use subject to strict conditions (LU)

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits an employer from organising drug detection tests unless the testing is justified by the hazardous nature of the employee’s job or justified by a serious incident. The tests may only be carried out by a medical doctor, never by the employer itself. In order to protect the employee’s private life, the employer cannot have direct access to the results of the tests, but if they confirm the employer’s suspicions, it can be given access to the doctor’s opinion regarding the employee’s (in)ability to perform his work.