Author(s): Dragoş Nicolae Costescu / Language(s): Romanian
Issue: 1/2016
Privacy - Art. 8 of the Convention
1. Barbulescu v. RomaniaAlthough the employer has not alleged infliction of harm by the applicant, the Court concluded that it is not unreasonable for an employer to verify that its employees perform their professional duties during working hours, including using e-mail/messenger. In conclusion, the Court held that national courts have preserved a fair balance between the applicant's right to privacy and the employer's interests, so that there is no a violation of art. 8 of the Convention.
2. Milojevic and Alfie v. SerbiaThe plaintiffs were employed as police officers. Against them they were initiated criminal proceedings, being accused of offenses and have been out from work. All applicants were acquitted and they contested measure of dismissal. Through final decisions of national courts, complaints have been rejected, on the ground that the Interior Ministry has proceeded legally, exercising discretionary right granted by national law to regulate activity on. The Court concluded that the law, based on which plaintiffs were dismissed, does not satisfy the requirement of foreseeability. Consequently, the applicants’ dismissal was not ,,in accordance with law" as required by Art. 8 of the Convention. The Court noted violation of Art. 8 of the Convention without the need to examine the issue considered legitimate purpose and proportionality of the measure.
3. Cornelius Bîrsan and Gabriela Victoria Bîrsan v. RomaniaNational Anticorruption Prosecutor's Office within the High Court of Cassation and Justice has opened a preliminary investigation against the applicant G.V.B. for influence peddling, as being suspected of receiving gifts from a lawyer. The plaintiffs claimed that their goods were confiscated during the search. The Court noted that, as is clear from the documents, following cancellation the measure on the search as unlawful, on the basis of immunity enjoyed by the plaintiffs, the prosecutor requested the convening for the return of property confiscated, but they have not actually been returned because it was denied taking possession. The Court found that the plaintiffs had prevailed through the use of domestic remedies for restitution, and the situation that they invoke under Art. 1 of Protocol no. 1 to this Convention is not the consequence of the attitude of the national authorities, but of their own behavior. The Court concluded that this complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and was rejected as inadmissible.
More...