Der EGMR hat mit Urteil vom 2.1.2016 den Zugriff eines Arbeit­ge­bers auf das für beruf­li­chen Zwecke bestimm­te Yahoo-Mes­sen­ger-Kon­to sei­nes Mit­ar­bei­ters im kon­kre­ten Fall als mit EMRK 8 ver­ein­bar erklärt:

54. The­re­fo­re, the Court has to exami­ne whe­ther the Sta­te, in the con­text of its posi­ti­ve obli­ga­ti­ons under Arti­cle 8, struck a fair balan­ce bet­ween the applicant’s right to respect for his pri­va­te life and cor­re­spon­dence and his employer’s inte­rests.

[…]

57. […] the Court notes that both the Coun­ty Court and the Court of Appeal atta­ched par­ti­cu­lar import­an­ce to the fact that the employ­er had acces­sed the applicant’s Yahoo Mes­sen­ger account in the belief that it had con­tai­ned pro­fes­sio­nal messages, sin­ce the lat­ter had initi­al­ly clai­med that he had used it in order to advi­se cli­ents (see para­graphs 10 and 12 above). It fol­lows that the employ­er acted wit­hin its disci­pli­na­ry powers sin­ce, as the dome­stic courts found, it had acces­sed the Yahoo Mes­sen­ger account on the assump­ti­on that the infor­ma­ti­on in questi­on had been rela­ted to pro­fes­sio­nal activi­ties and that such access had the­re­fo­re been legi­ti­ma­te. The Court sees no rea­son to questi­on the­se fin­dings.

[…]

59. […] the Court finds that it is not unre­a­son­able for an employ­er to want to veri­fy that the employees are com­ple­ting their pro­fes­sio­nal tasks during working hours.

60. In addi­ti­on, the Court notes that it appears that the com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons on his Yahoo Mes­sen­ger account were exami­ned, but not the other data and docu­ments that were stored on his com­pu­ter. It the­re­fo­re finds that the employer’s moni­to­ring was limi­ted in scope and pro­por­tio­na­te […].

61. Fur­ther­mo­re, the Court finds that the app­li­cant has not con­vin­cin­gly exp­lai­ned why he had used the Yahoo mes­sen­ger account for per­so­nal pur­po­ses (see para­graph 30 above).

62. Having regard to the fore­go­ing, the Court con­clu­des in the pre­sent case that the­re is not­hing to indi­ca­te that the dome­stic aut­ho­ri­ties fai­led to strike a fair balan­ce, wit­hin their mar­gin of appre­cia­ti­on, bet­ween the applicant’s right to respect for his pri­va­te life under Arti­cle 8 and his employer’s inte­rests.

Posted by David Vasella

RA Dr. David Vasella ist Rechtsanwalt bei FRORIEP. Er ist auf IT-, Datenschutz- und Immaterialgüterrecht spezialisiert und ist Lehrbeauftragter der Universität Zürich. Er ist Gründer von swissblawg.