Tokens: 25
.
Lastly
,
we
note
that
in
their
examination
of
the
case
,
the
national
authorities
took
into
account
the
attitude
displayed
by
the
applicant
in
the
course
of
his
professional
activities
in
general
,
and
during
the
disciplinary
proceedings
against
him
in
particular
.
Thus
,
the
County
Court
found
that
he
had
committed
a
disciplinary
offence
by
breaching
his
employer
’
s
internal
regulations
,
which
prohibited
the
use
of
computers
for
personal
purposes
(
see
paragraph
28
of
the
judgment
)
.
The
domestic
authorities
attached
significant
weight
in
their
analysis
to
the
applicant
’
s
attitude
in
the
disciplinary
proceedings
,
during
which
he
had
denied
using
his
employer
’
s
resources
for
personal
purposes
and
had
maintained
that
he
had
used
them
solely
for
work-related
purposes
,
which
was
incorrect
(
see
paragraphs
28
and
30
of
the
judgment
)
.
They
were
plainly
entitled
to
do
so
.
This
was
confirmed
when
the
applicant
asserted
before
this
Court
that
,
despite
the
fact
that
he
knew
that
private
use
of
his
work
computer
was
prohibited
,
it
would
only
have
been
an
awareness
of
monitoring
by
the
employer
which
would
have
led
him
not
to
engage
in
private
use
of
the
employer
’
s
computer
;
he
did
not
deny
that
he
was
informed
about
the
monitoring
,
but
could
not
remember
when
he
had
received
the
information
notice
alerting
him
to
the
monitoring
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O