BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS / Šturma, Mozetic (eds)

scope of the notions of “private life” and “correspondence” within the meaning of this provision. This principle was confirmed also by the judgment in the case of Copland v. the United Kingdom ten years later. 76 Today, the majority of conversations are performed via the internet. In the case of Bărbulescu v. Romania the Court observed that emails sent from the workplace and other information derived from the monitoring of a person’s internet use enjoy similar protections under Article 8 of the Convention as other types of correspondence. 77 In a recent case, Romania was held responsible for an infringement of its positive obligations in relation to the conduct of a private company, the Bucharest office of S. The applicant, Mr Bogdan Mihai Bărbulescu, was dismissed for using the company’s internet network during working hours in breach of the company’s internal regulations. It was proven that over a certain period of time the company had monitored his communications on a Yahoo Messenger account, including those with Mr Bărbulescu’s fiancée. The applicant complained before the Court under Article 8 of the Convention that the monitoring of use of the internet at his place of work and the use of data collected to justify his dismissal breached his right to respect for private life and correspondence. The Court noted that the domestic courts had failed to determine, inter alia , whether the applicant had received prior notice from his employer of the possibility that his communications on Yahoo Messenger might be monitored. It was established that Mr Bărbulescu had not been informed of the nature nor the extent of the monitoring. As a result, the Court ruled that the domestic authorities had not afforded adequate protection of the applicant’s right under Article 8 of the Convention. The applicants in the case of Antović and Mirković v. Montenegro complained that the use of video surveillance equipment in the university auditoriums where they held classes had violated their right to respect for their private life. 78 The Court agreed with the applicants and ruled that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, finding that the camera surveillance had not been in accordance with the law. The case of López Ribalda and Others v. Spain concerned video surveillance of a Spanish family-owned supermarket chain’s employees. The applicants were dismissed primarily on the basis of this video material and the Spanish courts acceptance of the recordings as evidence upheld their dismissal. The Court observed that, in the present case, the employer installed both visible and hidden surveillance cameras. The employees were only aware of the visible cameras and were not informed of the installation of video surveillance covering the cash desks. The Court noted that the video surveillance carried out by the employer did not comply with the requirements stipulated in the domestic law, especially regarding the obligation to previously, explicitly, precisely and unambiguously inform those concerned about the existence of a system collecting personal data. Given the fact that the rights of the employer could have been safeguarded by other means, notably by previously informing the applicants even in a general manner, the Court held that such conduct was contrary to Article

76 ECtHR, Copland v. the United Kingdom , Appl. No. 62617/00, Judgment, 3 April 2007, § 41. 77 ECtHR, Bărbulescu v. Romania [ GC], Appl. No. 61496/08, Judgment, 5 September 2017, § 72. 78 ECtHR, Antović and Mirković v. Montenegro , Appl. No. 70838/13, Judgment, 28 November 2017, § 35.

49