TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR2 (Government): Regarding the first aspect, in the written observations before the grand chamber, the government submitted detailed information concerning the national framework enforced at the material time.
GR2 (Government): Essential elements were reminded by my colleague.
GR2 (Government): The enacted provisions clearly regulated concrete safeguards and guarantees for the observance of the right enshrined in Article 8 of the convention, both at the constitutional level as well as within different branches of the law, criminal law, labor law, data protection law, civil law.
GR2 (Government): In addition, several examples of enforcement have also been provided, such as convictions, fines, modifying the dismissal decision of the employer with a milder sanction, restoring of the previous situation, and just satisfaction awards.
GR2 (Government): These case law examples serve the purpose of proving that the legal framework regulated effective remedies as they adequately fulfilled the roles of prevention, sanction, and redress.
GR2 (Government): In the instant case, the applicant chose to pursue only one of the instituted remedies, namely by lodging a complaint before the National Labor Courts within disciplinary proceedings.
GR2 (Government): Therefore, the government show no reserve in completely adhering to the findings of the chamber, which revealed that regard must be had to the scope of the complaint, which is limited to the monitoring of the applicant's communications within the framework of disciplinary proceedings.
GR2 (Government): Moving on to the decisions of the national jurisdictions, namely to the quality of the enforcement of the remedy chosen, the government outlined that the applicant was able to raise his arguments related to the alleged breach of his private life and correspondence before the domestic courts.
GR2 (Government): These judicial bodies, which present the highest level of independence and impartiality, thoroughly examined his arguments and found that the employer had acted in the context of disciplinary powers as provided for by the labor code.
GR2 (Government): In addition, both the county court and the court of appeal attached particular importance to the fact that the employer reviewed the communications in the belief that they contained professional messages, since the applicant had provided solid arguments in this respect.
GR2 (Government): It follows that such access had therefore been legitimate.
GR2 (Government): As to the use of the transcript of the applicant's communications, it was a piece of evidence which the national courts correctly did not attach particular weight to.
GR2 (Government): Indeed, they relied on the transcript only to the extent that it proved the applicant's disciplinary breach.
GR2 (Government): There is absolutely no mention in their decisions of any particular circumstances that the applicant had communicated.
GR2 (Government): Both the domestic courts and the chamber held that it is not unreasonable for an employer to want to verify that the employees are completing their professional tasks during working hours.
GR2 (Government): In this respect, the probative material did not disclose any indication that the employer's monitoring was not limited in scope and proportionate.
GR2 (Government): Lastly, the national courts found that the applicant has not convincingly explained why he had used the internet for personal purposes, in spite of the clear regulations, the possible consequences of his conduct, and the proper warning, all well known by the applicant.
GR2 (Government): It is for these reasons above that the government strongly disagree with the dissenting opinion and the observations of the third party, ETUC, showing that the dismissal measure was not proportionate.
GR2 (Government): The government consider that the foundation for solid and functional interpersonal relationships in all areas of life is represented by trust.
GR2 (Government): As such, we choose the make of our cars based on the trust we have in the producer.
GR2 (Government): We order our lunch from a certain restaurant because we trust it is prepared properly, and so on.
GR2 (Government): Imagine if the car brake suddenly stops functioning, or if we get food poisoning after lunch.
GR2 (Government): It appears natural not to want to continue in those relationships due to the loss of trust.
GR2 (Government): We often provide another chance and request explanations.
GR2 (Government): It is also the case of the applicant's employer, who provided Mr. Barbulescu with the opportunity
GR2 (Government): to submit explanations for his conduct.
GR2 (Government): Had he revealed, for instance, reasons of personal problems or fatigue, the unfolding of the events might have been different.
GR2 (Government): Instead, the applicant made a choice of attitude which completely striped away any possibility for the work relationship to continue with benefits for both parties.
GR2 (Government): Under these circumstances, it seems reasonable for the employer to want to place his investment in the hands of other competent people which he trusts.
GR2 (Government): The decision of dismissal was adopted with proper observance of all legal provisions.
GR2 (Government): Otherwise, the national courts would have annulled it or modified it into a milder measure, as they had the possibility and the competence to do so, but for the reasons above, considered not to be the case.
GR2 (Government): As a final point, the government wished to address another issue flowing from the dissenting opinion and the observations of a third party, ETUC, proclaiming in essence that the complete ban of internet use in personal interest at the workplace is not reasonable, as internet needs to be regarded as a fundamental human right.
GR2 (Government): The government will not speculate on the recognition of internet as a distinct fundamental human right, nor will they ignore that its use as a means to impart or receive information or as a vehicle to modern forms of correspondence is covered by the exercise of other fundamental yet conditional human rights.
GR2 (Government): However, it needs not be omitted that the broad arguments supporting the proclamation above stem from provisions which were, in their vast majority, enacted or adopted after the events in question, which occurred in 2007, almost 10 years ago.
GR2 (Government): Back then, we had black and white mobile phones and we were playing Tetris or Snake.
GR2 (Government): Nowadays, we have smartphones with gigabytes of internet traffic and find that staying eight hours at work without internet access appears absurd.
GR2 (Government): As such, a correct assessment of the events should be performed not with regard to the current reality of 2016, but by evaluating the competing interests using the 2007 model scale.
GR2 (Government): As such, a ban to use internet for personal purposes during working hours from the employer's devices does not equate a lack of access to internet nowadays, given the present possibility to connect through individual means.
GR2 (Government): But most importantly, the present case is not about access to internet as a human right.
GR2 (Government): Mr. Barbulescu did not at any moment,
GR2 (Government): before or after his dismissal, complain about being denied access to internet and to the consequences of this denial.
GR2 (Government): Mr. Barbulescu did not challenge the internal regulations that
GR2 (Government): clearly stipulated the use of computer and internet, among other tools, only in a professional purpose.
GR2 (Government): The only thing this case is about is the abusive use, in total acknowledgment of the employer's internal rules, of a tool that was placed at his disposal only for work-related goals.
GR2 (Government): Mr. President, honorable judges, in order
GR2 (Government): to summarize on this last point of the pleading, the government recalled that, in the present case, the national framework enforced at the material time clearly regulated concrete safeguards and guarantees for the observance of the right in question, and also corresponding functional mechanisms for their enforcement.
GR2 (Government): The applicant chose to pursue only one of the instituted mechanism, and the remedy chosen was properly enforced by the national courts within fair hearings.
GR2 (Government): Accordingly, we respectfully ask the Grand Chamber, after taking note of the elements above, and after having regard to the fact that the four national judges held that the applicants' rights were not infringed, and also that six of the seven judges of the chamber reached the same conclusion, in spite of the absence of proof of proper warning, which is now present at the case, to hold that, in the case at hand, a fair balance between the competing private interest has been struck, and that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much Mr. Gavrilă. I thank both parties for their interventions.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): And now I ask the judges of the Grand Chamber, I invite them to ask the parties the questions they may have.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I see Judge Ravarani, please.
Georges Ravarani (Judge): J'ai quelques questions factuelles qui s'adressent aux deux parties, mais en fait, plutôt à l'employeur qui n'est pas présent.
Georges Ravarani (Judge): Et il ne s'agit pas à proprement parler de questions, mais plutôt également de confirmations.
Georges Ravarani (Judge): Dans le mémoire du gouvernement, il est dit, et je cite, le 13 juillet 2007, dans le cadre de la procédure disciplinaire engagée par son employeur, le requérant lui-même déclara avoir ouvert le compte de massagerie pour fournir des conseils techniques aux clients de l'entreprise.
Georges Ravarani (Judge): Alors, ma question, qui était à l'initiative de la création des comptes Yahoo, professionnels et privés au sein de l'entreprise?
Georges Ravarani (Judge): Le requérant l'a-t-il fait de sa propre initiative ou y a-t-il été encouragé par l'employeur?
Georges Ravarani (Judge): Et dans cette suite, l'employeur était-il au courant de l'ouverture par le requérant de deux comptes dont l'un était privé et l'autre était professionnel, mais les deux fonctionnaient sur le matériel informatique de l'entreprise?
Georges Ravarani (Judge): Ca, c'est ma première question.
Georges Ravarani (Judge): La deuxième question, je me réfère au règlement d'ordre intérieur qui a été cité en partie dans le jugement, où il est dit, il est strictement interdit de troubler l'ordre et la discipline dans les cours de l'entreprise, et en particulier d'utiliser les ordinateurs, photocopieurs, téléphones, téléscripteurs, etc. à des fins personnelles.
Georges Ravarani (Judge): Par ailleurs, dans la note d'information circulée le 3 juillet 2007, il est dit, le temps passé dans l'entreprise doit être de qualité pour tout le monde.
Georges Ravarani (Judge): Venez au travail pour vous occuper des problèmes de la société, de votre travail, et non pas des problèmes privés.
Georges Ravarani (Judge): Ne passez pas votre temps à occuper les lignes Internet, téléphone, etc.
Georges Ravarani (Judge): Est-ce que les interdictions se rapportaient seulement à l'usage du matériel mis à disposition par l'employeur?
Georges Ravarani (Judge): Ou est-ce que l'interdiction a été générale, dans le sens qu'on ne devait même pas l'utiliser pendant les heures de travail, ses propres moyens de communication, si tant est qu'il en existait en 2007, comme des portables privés, etc.?
Georges Ravarani (Judge): Dans ce contexte, l'usage du compte personnel était-il autorisé ou toléré par l'employeur?
Georges Ravarani (Judge): Une dernière question qui était...
Georges Ravarani (Judge): Je crois qu'elle a déjà été répondue, mais une confirmation serait la bienvenue.
Georges Ravarani (Judge): Quel est le moment exact auquel l'employeur a imprimé les messages qu'il avait préalablement enregistrés avant ou après la déclaration du salarié qu'il s'agissait de messages professionnels?
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Merci, madame la juge Karakaş.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): J'ai aussi une question factuelle.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Le gouvernement a précisé que le requérant, lui-même a diffusé le contenu des messages pendant le procès, c'était pas l'employeur.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Mais est-ce que les transcriptions des communications privées du requérant ont été rendues publiques déjà, je dirais, par l'employeur?
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): C'est-à-dire, est-ce qu'il a divulgué ces communications aux collègues, aux salariés au sein de l'entreprise?
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Parce que le requérant a ce griffé au paragraphe 82 de ses observations, mais là, il manque de détails, il n'y a pas assez de précisions.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Donc, moi, je dirais que, comme le gouvernement a dit, il y a une différence, bien sûr, entre l'enregistrement, l'examen et la vérification, et l'examen des messages par l'employeur, mais je dirais qu'il existe aussi une grande différence, une grande, importante différence entre la vérification et l'examen et la divulgation des messages au sein de l'article 8.
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Et donc, par rapport à ça, j'aimerais aussi savoir, et surtout par le requérant, est-ce que ce griffé a été soulevé devant les juridictions internes?
Işıl Karakaş (Judge): Voila, merci beaucoup.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup, madame la juge Nußberger.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): I also would have a factual question.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): I understand that on 3rd July 2007, as is said in the observations of the government, paragraph 11, a company-wide notice was registered with the Bucharest office.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): And then it was signed one by one by the employees.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): I would like to understand the communication policy in this respect.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): What does it mean it was registered?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): And was it only a paper version that was given from hand to hand, one by the other?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): Or was it also communicated electronically?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): Or was it even put on the blackboard in the enterprise?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): So how could the employees take notice of this note, just to understand, because we don't know this exactly when he knew it, between this period of 3rd July to 13th July.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): And the second question I would have, as my colleague Judge Ravarani has said, we have these two parallel accounts, the personal account and the professional account.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): And as they were parallel, I would like to understand the way of using it on the side of the employee.
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): Did he make a difference in using the personal account and the professional account?
Angelika Nußberger (Judge): And also for the employer, did the employer make a difference in monitoring the personal account and the professional account?
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much, judge Potocki.
André Potocki (Judge): Pour ma part, je voudrais revenir sur un argument présenté par le gouvernement défendeur et dont il nous dit qu'il est inspiré par les informations données par la Confédération européenne des syndicats parties tierces intervenantes.
André Potocki (Judge): Si j'ai bien compris la position du gouvernement sur ce point, il y aurait trois niveaux d'intensité dans la surveillance qu'un employeur peut exercer à l'égard des communications passées par un employé.
André Potocki (Judge): Le premier niveau, le plus bas, serait celui d'un simple contrôle des flux.
André Potocki (Judge): Le nombre de communications, le temps passé dans ces communications, leur durée.
André Potocki (Judge): Un niveau intermédiaire serait celui de l'interception de ces communications, mais sans accès à leur contenu, ces communications étant alors conservées, notamment pour réserver une preuve si nécessaire dans un contentieux ultérieur, ou pour interroger le salarié lui-même sur le caractère privé ou professionnel de ces conversations interceptées, mais non ouvertes.
André Potocki (Judge): Le troisième niveau, le niveau ultime, serait celui de l'interception avec accès immédiat au contenu de ces échanges.
André Potocki (Judge): Le gouvernement, si j'ai bien compris sa position, nous dit que, en réalité, dans cette affaire, l'employeur aurait pratiqué le niveau de surveillance intermédiaire, c'est-à-dire qu'il aurait noté que le flux des communications était, je mets des guillemets, suspect, qu'il aurait alors intercepté ces communications, ces messages, mais sans avoir accès à leur contenu, qu'il aurait ensuite interrogé le salarié, le requérant, sur leur nature professionnelle ou privée, et que ce n'est que parce que le requérant aurait répondu que ces communications étaient professionnelles, qu'il n'avait que des communications professionnelles, qu'il aurait alors accédé au contenu de ces informations.
André Potocki (Judge): Je voudrais, d'une part, que le gouvernement me dise si j'ai bien compris cette argumentation et si elle est soutenue factuellement comme étant soit établie, soit probable, soit hypothétique.
André Potocki (Judge): Et je voudrais que les conseils du requérant nous disent, sur le plan factuel, ce qu'ils pensent de cette analyse, et sur le plan juridique, à supposer qu'il en soit ainsi, comment réagissent-ils.
André Potocki (Judge): Voilà ma question, Monsieur le Président.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Merci beaucoup, monsieur le juge Lemmens.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Thank you very much, I'd like to ask a first very simple question to the government, the government mentioned that there were some remedies that could have been exhausted by the applicant, does that mean that there is now a formal objection to the admissibility of the application based of non-exhaustion of these remedies.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): And the second question is to both parties and it is of a factual nature and it is somewhat in the line of what my colleague Mr. Potocki has asked.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): If I can see, or the government attached to its observations the charge showing the internet traffic.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): And it shows that the applicant has had much more, made much more use of the internet than some other employees.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): I don't know whether these are all the employees. I see that there are in total seven employees mentioned.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): My question is, this actually prompted the disciplinary proceedings by the employer.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Was there also a rule on the excessive use of internet and in particular on the excessive use of Yahoo messenger by the employees?
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Whether private or professional.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Was the use of the Yahoo messenger in itself something suspect within the firm?
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Was this high use of the Yahoo messenger an indication that it was being used for private purposes?
Paul Lemmens (Judge): And then I come a bit to the situation or the questions raised by my colleague.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): If the high use of the Yahoo messenger was already an indication of a private use, why then still ask the applicant whether he used it for professional purposes?
Paul Lemmens (Judge): I would like to, it's not, it's in fact a question to the employer, but I would like to know whether the parties have something to say about this.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Thank you very much, judge Dedov please.
Dmitry Dedov (Judge): I have a question to both parties.
Dmitry Dedov (Judge): You both said about legitimate expectations, and I understand both parties had legitimate expectations in this case.
Dmitry Dedov (Judge): And can we, and can you say that it is possible, instead of legitimate expectations of privacy, in some circumstances, or in the context of this case, this particular case, there could be legitimate expectations that the privacy could be limited, or even monitored?
Dmitry Dedov (Judge): And the second question is about the proportionality, whether the use of Internet for private correspondence was too much.
Dmitry Dedov (Judge): So it's not a quick question between the relatives, just the call for emergency, or that we have 45 pages of correspondence.
Dmitry Dedov (Judge): Isn't it too much for using, enjoying privacy in a working environment?
Dmitry Dedov (Judge): And the question to the government, whether there was also no proportionality enjoyed by the employer when monitoring without or with any cause, just because it was the equipment belonging to the company, that's all, or there was any cause for monitoring.
Dmitry Dedov (Judge): Or it is the case that we call as a mass surveillance case within the limits of working environment.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Maintenant, la cour va se retirer jusqu'à 11h00.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Après quoi, les partis pourront présenter des brèves observations à réponse aux coupes les doigts et adverses et aux questions des juges.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Vous en prie, asseyez-vous. L'audience est reprise et la parole est à Maître Domokos-Hâncu.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Vous avez la parole, Maître.
AP1 (Applicant): I will start by addressing part of the state's arguments.
AP1 (Applicant): Firstly, I will touch upon the nature of the accounts.
AP1 (Applicant): As the majority failed to see, and as the state claims here today, the employer was not the owner of the instant messaging account.
AP1 (Applicant): Indeed, these accounts were opened following the employer's instruction in this respect.
AP1 (Applicant): But it is Mr. Barbulescu who firstly
AP1 (Applicant): accepted the terms and conditions of Yahoo Incorporated in his own name.
AP1 (Applicant): It is the single person who had the passwords to these accounts.
AP1 (Applicant): And basically, he was the sole owner of the account, not the employer.
AP1 (Applicant): But it's true the accounts were set up, were opened following the employer's instructions.
AP1 (Applicant): The state also touched the fact that we were not active in the criminal complaint.
AP1 (Applicant): Firstly, we filed a criminal complaint.
AP1 (Applicant): Secondly, generally, you would be proactive in a criminal investigation when you are called to be active.
AP1 (Applicant): Also, what the state fails to clearly state, that it took more than five years for the criminal investigation to come to a completely false understanding of the statement of facts.
AP1 (Applicant): How could they conclude after five years that his fiance and his brother worked for the same employer?
AP1 (Applicant): This is false.
AP1 (Applicant): Also, what the state failed to prove and to show is that the paper that was served after five years to Mr. Barbulescu had no reference to the fact
AP1 (Applicant): that he had any right to challenge it.
AP1 (Applicant): And he is by no means a lawyer.
AP1 (Applicant): And at any way, at that stage, he almost lost faith in any just reply from the state's authorities.
AP1 (Applicant): Also, the state talked about access to the internet.
AP1 (Applicant): As I've mentioned, access to the internet cannot be regarded as a right of the employer to be granted to the employee, but an extension of the fundamental human right to freedom of expression.
AP1 (Applicant): Also, what is crucial, and we need to go back to the first notice, Notice 3772, which is the notice that commenced the so-called disciplinary procedure.
AP1 (Applicant): This notice, at this preliminary stage of the disciplinary procedure, calls Mr. Barbulescu
AP1 (Applicant): to say why he used the internet and why he used the computer of the company for his personal use.
AP1 (Applicant): Now, the question is, how could the employer could have known at this stage that Mr. Barbulescu used
AP1 (Applicant): the company computer and internet connection for his personal interest?
AP1 (Applicant): How could they have known, even from reading the transcripts, that this is personal correspondence?
AP1 (Applicant): And this basically proves that the employer, even before commencing any disciplinary procedure, knew about the existence of such communication and knew about the personal nature of such communication.
AP1 (Applicant): This also proves that the employer's real intent to terminate Mr. Barbulescu's employment