BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS / Šturma, Mozetic (eds)

instead either to exaggerate or oversimplify the underlying reality. Therefore, given the lack of sufficient protection of the applicants’ reputation in compliance with the state’s positive obligations, the Court found an infringement of Article 8 of the Convention. 68 The Court ruled that the publications of the newspaper Fædrelandsvennen had gravely damaged the applicant’s reputation and honour having been especially harmful to his moral and psychological integrity as well as to his private life in the case of A. v. Norway . 69 Finding a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, the Court observed that it was not satisfied as to how the national courts had struck a balance between the newspaper’s freedom of expression under Article 10 and the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8. Defamation proceedings with the involvement of business entities were the subject of the Court analysis in the cases Popovski v. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” , 70 Fürst-Pfeifer v. Austria , 71 Petrina v. Romania 72 and some others. 73 The discussed case- law shows that in most of the cases in this category, the breach of Article 8 arose from activities of newspapers, magazines, or TV companies that did not belong to the state. Again, it would be incorrect to say that the Court acknowledged violations of the right to private life by these subjects. In fact, finding a breach of Article 8 of the Convention stem from the improper balance of the freedom of expression and the respect to private life. Nevertheless, businesses should take into account the described case-law in order to prevent human rights abuses in their conduct. The last group of cases to be discussed in this paper relate to employment disputes. 2.3 Employment disputes According to Article 34 of the Convention, the Court has no jurisdiction to consider applications directed against businesses. 74 Therefore, it is clear that employees may not complain before the Court regarding the behaviour of their employers which are private companies. Nonetheless, the practice shows that under certain circumstances the abusive conduct of a business may become the subject of its examination. Situations concerning surveillance at a workplace may fall under the notion of the right to private life. The first judgment related to the monitoring of employee’s correspondence ( Halford v. the United Kingdom ) dates back to 1997 and does not concern a private company. However, the principles elaborated by the Court in this case are applicable to the activities of businesses as well. The Court found a breach of Article 8 of the Convention in relation to the interception of calls made on Ms Halford’s office telephones 75 and ruled that the conversations held by the applicant at her workplace fell within the 68 Ibid., § 239. 69 ECtHR, A. v. Norway , Appl. No. 28070/06, Judgment, 9 April 2009, § 73. 70 ECtHR, Popovski v. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” , Appl. No. 12316/07, Judgment, 31 October 2013. 71 ECtHR, Fürst-Pfeifer v. Austria , Appl. Nos. 33677/10 and 52340/10, Judgment, 17 May 2016. 72 ECtHR, Petrina v. Romania , Appl. No. 78060/01, Judgment, 14 October 2008. 73 E.g. ECtHR, Pfeifer v. Austria , Appl. No. 12556/03, Judgment, 15 November 2007. 74 ECtHR, Reynbakh v. Russia , Appl. No. 23405/03, Judgment, 29 September 2005, § 18. 75 ECtHR, Halford v. the United Kingdom , Appl. No. 20605/92, Judgment, 25 June 1997, § 51.

48