EGMR, Băr­bu­les­cu v. Rumä­ni­en: Berech­tig­tes Inter­es­se des Arbeit­ge­bers, die Ver­wen­dung der Arbeits­zeit zu verifizieren

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.




Ähnliche Beiträge