Grand Chamber judgment Barbulescu v. Romania - monitoring of an employee’s electronic communications

CtEDO 2017-09-05 0,89

’ time and resources. He further argued that neither the internal regulations nor the information notice had contained any indication that the employer could monitor employees’ communications. 30. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant

CtEDO 2016-01-12 0,89

and the obligation to ensure the functioning of the company and, to this end, [the right] to check the manner in which its employees complete their professional tasks, and of the fact that [the employer] holds the disciplinary power of whic

CtEDO 2012-12-18 0,88

mail may also be necessary for reasons other than monitoring or surveillance, for example in order to maintain correspondence in case the employee is out of office (e.g. sickness or holidays) and correspondence cannot be guaranteed otherwis

CtEDO 2017-09-05 0,88

motive pentru monitorizarea corespondenței angajatului? Dacă a fost posibilă instalarea unui sistem de monitorizare bazat pe mijloace și măsuri mai puțin intruzive decât accesul direct la conținutul comunicărilor angajatului? Care au fost c

CtEDO 2019-06-06 0,88

Resolution CM/ResDH(2019)124 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Bărbulescu against Romania (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 June 2019 at the 1348 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) Application No.