CASE OF BĂRBULESCU v. ROMANIA
Hearing: Bărbulescu v. Romania (no. 61496/08) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-11-30 00:00:00)
Application no.: 61496/08
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2017-09-05 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2017:0905JUD006149608
Respondent state: ROU
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;41
Judges: András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Armen Harutyunyan;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Iulia Motoc;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Luis López Guerra;Marko Bošnjak;Mārtiņš Mits;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nebojša Vučinić;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Lemmens;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani;Tim Eicke
Represented by: DOMOKOS-HANCU E. ; JUVERDEANU O.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 44, ECHR 2000 II;Aydan v. Turkey, no. 16281/10, § 69, 12 March 2013;Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 95, 7 February 2012;Bigaeva v. Greece, no. 26713/05, § 22, 28 May 2009;Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 91, ECHR 2016;Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, § 90, ECHR 2002-VI;Codarcea v. Romania, no. 31675/04, §§ 102-104, 2 June 2009;D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 109, ECHR 2007 IV;Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no. 34503/97, §§ 140 146, ECHR 2008;Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 110, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, § 180, ECHR 2011 (extracts);Gustafsson v. Sweden, 25 April 1996, § 45, Reports 1996 II;Halford v. the United Kingdom, 25 June 1997, §§ 44-45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 III;Hämäläinen v. Finland [GC], no. 37359/09, § 62, ECHR 2014;K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, §§ 140-141, ECHR 2001 VII;K.A. and A.D. v. Belgium, nos. 42758/98 and 45558/99, § 83, 17 February 2005;K.U. v. Finland, no. 2872/02, §§ 43 and 49, ECHR 2008;Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 50, Series A no. 28;Köpke v. Germany (dec.), no. 420/07, 5 October 2010;Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 187, ECHR 2016 (extracts);M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 150, ECHR 2003 XII;Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, § 182, 14 April 2015;Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 29, Series A no. 251 B;Obst v. Germany, no. 425/03, §§ 40 and 43, 23 September 2010;Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, §§ 165-166, ECHR 2013;Özpınar v. Turkey, no. 20999/04, § 45 in fine, 19 October 2010;Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 3 others, ECHR 2011;Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002-III;Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 173, ECHR 2015;Saumier v. France, no. 74734/14, § 60, 12 January 2017;Schüth v. Germany, no. 1620/03, §§ 54 and 57, ECHR 2010;Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 43, ECHR 2004 VIII;Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 95, ECHR 2003 IX (extracts);Söderman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08, § 85, ECHR 2013;Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 95 and 98, ECHR 2012;Wretlund v. Sweden (dec.), no. 46210/99, 9 March 2004;X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 23, Series A no. 91
External sources: International Labour Office (ILO) issued a Code of Practice on the Protection of Workers’ Personal Data (“the ILO Code of Practice”) issued in 1997;
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data;Recommendation CM/Rec(2015)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the processing of personal data in the context of employment, which was adopted on 1 April 2015


Conclusion: Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE