ECHR finds surveillance of private communications at work does not infringe human rights

Posted on 1st January, 2016
, in UK 

Estimated reading time 5 minutes

The much litigated issue of employers’ rights to review employees’ private communications during working hours, using company equipment, has come before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). 

The case, originating between a Romanian worker and his employer, concerned a dismissal where the company had inadvertently discovered communications between the worker and a member of his family concerning his health and sex life.  He was dismissed for using company systems for private purposes.  The employee challenged this, alleging that his rights to respect for a private life and correspondence under the European Convention on Human Rights had been infringed.

The decision and its implications

The decision is somewhat fact specific.  Although it cannot be said that employers have complete carte blanche to review and make use of private communications at work, the following points of guidance emerge from the case:

●       Employers must clearly communicate to employees its policy on the use of company systems and equipment for private purposes and must explain whether, and if so how, this will be monitored.

●       To avoid breach of the Convention, such monitoring must be reasonable and proportionate.

●       It is not unreasonable for an employer to want to verify that employees are completing work related tasks while at work.

The fact that the information was discovered through monitoring designed to check work activity was significant — blanket surveillance of information which is clearly private may not be lawful and may infringe a worker’s rights to privacy under the Convention as not being reasonable or proportionate. 

What does this mean for my business?

The importance of appropriate employer policies

This decision aligns with the position under UK law.  Allegations of unfair or unlawful monitoring have arisen in a number of cases in the Employment tribunal and under the Lawful Business Practice Regulations. These have consistently stressed the need for employers to have a clear, well communicated policy on the use of company systems and equipment for private purposes.  Employers must also make clear the circumstances in which monitoring will take place and its extent.  This case is, however, a useful reminder that blanket monitoring which is not for a specific and legitimate business purpose, is not likely to be lawful, and in the context of human rights law risks infringement of the right to respect for a private life.

It is also worth noting that the position will not change even if the UK Government delivers on its manifesto commitment to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998. The UK was one of the original signatories to the Convention in 1947 and decisions of the ECHR will continue to bind UK courts for as long as we remain signatories.  Secession from the Convention has been called for by some UK politicians but so far has not been stated as Government policy.  To do so would make the UK the only EU member state outside the Convention and one of only two in Europe (the other being Belarus).

Effect on employee engagement

Several commentators have criticised the decision on the basis that the separation between working and leisure time has become increasingly blurred making it difficult to maintain strict barriers between what is work-related and what is personal.  It has been claimed that if employees believe any communication sent during or out of working hours by means of company equipment is viewed by their employer, it will adversely impact on employee engagement and result in increasing levels of stress and alienation.  Against this it might be said that employees have a clear choice – they may either use company equipment for personal communications and risk those being seen by their employer (and possibly also disciplinary action if this is the employer’s policy) or make those communications using personal equipment.  Whichever view is taken, what is clear is that it is incumbent on an employer to set out company policy in this area so that all employees know the extent of monitoring that is to take place and where they stand.    

Contact us

If you would like to review or implement a new policy on the use of company systems and equipment, please contact Sophie White or David Widdowson on +44 (0) 203 051 5711, Abbiss Cadres.


Content is for general information purposes only. The information provided is not intended to be comprehensive and it does not constitute or contain legal or other advice. If you require assistance in relation to any issue please seek specific advice relevant to your particular circumstances. In particular, no responsibility shall be accepted by the authors or by Abbiss Cadres LLP for any losses occasioned by reliance on any content appearing on or accessible from this article. For further legal information click here.

Circular 230 disclosure

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS and other taxing authorities, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this article (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.