Monitoring of the employee’s Internet use in the workplace in the light of selected case law of the European Court of Human Rights and Polish case law
2019, 2019, No. 4
Publication date
Publishing model
License type
Field
Discipline
Language of publication
Downloads
PDF 560 KB
Number of views:358
Number of downloads:74
Crossref citations:0
Altmetric score:0
Abstract
This article analyses selected case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) as well as Polish case law in the subject matter specified in the title, i.e. the monitoring of Internet use by employees in the workplace. The author has selected the research subject based on the own observations on the existence of nuances and divergences in the ECHR’s case law in this field, as well as a growing importance of this matter in the context of increasing employees’ online activity at work. The study is based on such research methods as content analysis, comparative legal methodology and the formal-dogmatic approach.
Keywords:
Bibliography
BOEHM F., HEY T., ORTNER R. (2016), How to measure IT security awareness of employees: a comparison to e-mail surveillance at the workplace, “European Journal of Law and Technology”, vol. 7,no 1.
CABEZA PEREIRO Jaime et al. (2017), Is the employer entitled to survey employee’s internet communications in the workplace? Case of Barbalescu v. Romania, in: F. Campos Freire, X. Rúas-Araújo, V.-A.Martínez-Fernández, X. López-García (eds), “Media and Metamedia Management”, Springer.
CONVENTION for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome, 4 November 1950) (Journal of Laws 1993 no. 61 item 284, as amended).
CZUBIK A. (2013), Prawo do prywatności. Wpływ amerykańskich koncepcji i rozwiązań prawnych na prawo międzynarodowe, Kraków.
DALE J. (2016), Monitoring employees’ emails, “Timber Trades Journal”, Tonbridge 6791, March 2016.
DIJKSTRA S. (2017), The Freedom of the Judge to Express his Personal Opinions and Convictions under the ECHR, “Utrecht Law Review”, Volume 13, Issue 1.
DIRECTIVE 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31–50).
DIRECTIVE 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37–47
ECHR (2016), Judgement of the ECHR of 12 January 2016 in Case of BДѓrbulescu v. Romania, Application no. 61496/08
ECHR (2017), Judgment of the ECHR of 5 September 2017 in Case of BДѓrbulescu v. Romania, Application no. 61496/08.
EICHENHOFER J. (2016), Internet Privacy at Work – the ECtHR Bărbulescu Judgment, “European Data Protection Law Review”, no. 2.
GRAY D., HENDERSON S. (eds.) (2017), European Human Rights, Criminal Surveillance and Intelligence Surveillance: Towards ‚Good Enough’ Oversight, Preferably But Not Necessarily by Judges, “Cambridge Handbook of Surveillance Law”.
MACFARLANE A. (2016), When using surveillance to monitor an employee’s internet usage in the workplace, has the employer’s interference of an employee’s Article 8 right to respect for private life and correspondence become so unfettered that the legitimacy of it is disregarded? in: SLSA Annual Conference, 5–7 April 2016, Lancaster.
REGULATION (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), OJ L of 2018, no. 127/2.
VANESSON E. (2016), Legal opinion… UK emlpoyers do not have the green light to spy on employees, “Employers’ Law”, March 2016.
WRAGG P. (2016), No employer right to snoop but what of employee rights at work?, “Communications Law”, vol. 21, no. 1.
YURKINA E. (2017), Surveillance in the workplace: States’ positive obligations in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, “Note e commenti”, no. 3.
Labour Code Act of 26 June 1974 (OJ 1974 no. 24 item 141, as amended).
Muszalski W. (ed.) (2017), Kodeks pracy. Komentarz, Warsaw
Case of Malone v. the United Kingdom, 1984, ECHR 8691/79.
Case of Halford v. the United Kingdom, 1997, ECHR 20605/92.
Case of Copland v. the United Kingdom, 2007, ECHR 62617/00.
Case of X. v. Germany, 1979, no. 8383/78 (3 October 1979).
Case of Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 1992, no. 13590/88 (25 March 1992) A 233.
Case of Huvig v. France, 1990, no. 11105/84 (24 April 1990) A176-B.
Judgment of the (Polish) Supreme Court of 4 November 2010 (II PK 110/10).
Judgment of the (Polish) Supreme Court of 6 July 2011 (II PK 13/11).
Judgment of the (Polish) Supreme Court – Chamber of Labour, Social Insurance and Public Affairs of 22 March 2016 (II PK 31/15).
Judgment of the (Polish) Supreme Court – Chamber of Labour, Social Insurance and Public Affairs of 4 April 2017 (II PK 27/16).
Other articles from the issue
Content / Spis treści
- Germanymilitary cooperationCommon Security and Defense PolicyCSDPEuropean Unionthe European army
Evolution of the German concepts of military cooperation in Europe
- European Citizens’ Initiativefollow-up activitiescommunication of the European Commission
The European citizens’ initiative. Over one million support, and what next?
Similar publications
Content / Spis treści
- Germanymilitary cooperationCommon Security and Defense PolicyCSDPEuropean Unionthe European army
Evolution of the German concepts of military cooperation in Europe
- European Citizens’ Initiativefollow-up activitiescommunication of the European Commission
The European citizens’ initiative. Over one million support, and what next?