header-logo header-logo

A right to private life at work?

02 February 2018 / Peter Coe
Issue: 7779 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail
nlj_7779_coe

Peter Coe looks at Bãrbulescu v Romania in terms of monitoring versus privacy rights & the fast-approaching GDPR

  • Employees have an irreducible minimum right to private social life while at work.
  • Highlights five steps to help employers find the right balance.

Ivery much doubt that when Mr Bogdan Bãrbulescu created a Yahoo instant messenger (IM) account at his employer’s request to deal with customer enquiries he had any idea it would end up the subject of litigation working its way all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). But it has and, in doing so, it has given us an important ruling relating to employees’ privacy in the workplace, particularly in light of the forthcoming introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in May 2018. The case in question is Bãrbulescu v Romania [2016] App no 61496/08.

What’s it all about?

On 3 July 2007, Bãrbulescu’s employer sent a notice to all employees prohibiting personal use of the internet while at work. The notice also told employees

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll