| Applicant name | PAPALEA |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | Faris Vehabović , President , Anja Seibert-Fohr, Sebastian Răduleţu |
| Country | ROMANIA |
| Application no. | 20886/21 |
| Date | 16/04/2024 |
| Judges | Faris Vehabović , President , Anja Seibert-Fohr, Sebastian Răduleţu |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Positive obligation |
| Type of privacy | Informational privacy |
| Keywords | Workplace privacy |
| Facts of the case | The Court notes that the present case concerns electronic messages that the applicant had exchanged with female correspondents on a casual dating site, sent from an email account belonging to the employer. These are personal messages which an individual may legitimately expect not to be disclosed without his or her consent, and the disclosure of which may give rise to a very strong feeling of intrusion into “ private life ” It does not appear from the case file that the applicant was prohibited from using this email account for private purposes. Furthermore, the Court reiterates that, in the wording of Article 8 of the Convention, the word “correspondence” is not accompanied by an adjective, unlike the term “ life ”, and that the concept of “correspondence ” applies to the sending and receiving of messages, even from the employer’s computer. The Court concludes that the messages in question in the present case fall within the scope of this provision |
| Analysis | As regards access to the applicant’s e-mail messages, the Court notes that, in its judgment of 12 October 2020, the Braşov Court of Appeal considered, as the public prosecutor’s office had previously done, that access to correspondence contained in an e-mail account belonging to the employer and which could be accessed from a telephone number belonging to the company “ could not be considered personal correspondence ”. In this regard, the Court of Appeal stated that the fact that, when the employer read the official correspondence, it discovered the applicant’s private discussions held through a social network did not render access to their content unlawful. The Court notes that the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment that the applicant’s correspondence did not fall within the scope of protection described by Article 8 of the Convention. |
| Other Article violation? | – |
| Damage awarded | Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant ; |
| Documents | Judgment |