BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS / Šturma, Mozetic (eds)

8 of the Convention. 79 The Court also distinguished this case from the Köpke case, 80 where the surveillance measure was limited in time. It stressed that in the instant case the covert video surveillance did not follow a prior substantiated suspicion against the applicants and was not aimed at them specifically, but at all of the staff working on the cash registers, over a period of weeks without any time limit. The most recent judgment on this type of dispute was rendered on 22 February 2018 81 and concerned the dismissal of an employee after the seizure of his work computer revealed a storage of pornographic files. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his employer had opened, in his absence, personal files stored on the hard drive of his work computer. The Court found no violation of this provision, ruling that the French authorities had not overstepped the margin of appreciation available to them. It noted in particular that the conduct at issue had pursed a legitimate aim of protecting the rights of employers, who might legitimately wish to ensure that their employees were using the office computer facilities in line with their contractual obligations. The Court also observed that French law contained a privacy protection mechanism allowing employers to open only professional files and only in the employee’s presence. The said mechanism did not prevent the employer from opening the applicant’s files since they had not been duly identified as being private. Although the case concerned an employment dispute with a state-owned company, SNCF, the principles elaborated here would apply similarly to the conduct of a private company. As we have seen, corporate human rights abuses may also steam from surveillance at the workplace. In order to comply with the Convention standards and the obligation to respect human rights, employers should explicitly inform their employees about monitoring of their work prior to doing so. Moreover, surveillance measures have to be limited in time. 3. Concluding remarks The analysis of the Court’s case-law under each of the three main categories illustrates that business entities may be involved in abuses of the right to respect for private and family life as set forth in Article 8 of the Convention. Even though the CoE documents related to the topic of business and human rights do not impose a direct obligation on private companies to protect human rights under the Convention, the judgments and decisions at issue may serve as the basis for possible indirect obligations of business corporations. The research demonstrates that the Convention mechanism can contribute to establishing human rights obligations for business entities in the sphere of private life. These obligations are indirect and may be imposed only at the national level. Given the positive obligations, the described case-law may lead states to the introduction of corresponding legislation

79 ECtHR, López Ribalda and Others v. Spain , Appl. Nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13, Judgment, 9 January 2018, § 69. 80 ECtHR, Köpke v. Germany , Appl. No. 420/07, Decision, 5 October 2010. 81 ECtHR, Libert v. France , Appl. No. 588/13, Decision, 22 February 2018.

50