In Antovic and another v Montenegro, the European Court of Human Rights held that overt camera surveillance in a university's lecture halls violated professors' right to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights.
In Barbulescu v Romania [2017] IRLR 1032 ECHR, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that the Romanian courts failed to afford adequate protection to the art.8 rights of an employee who sought to challenge his dismissal following a monitoring exercise by his employer.
The Supreme Court has held that the State Immunity Act 1978 cannot prevent embassy staff from enforcing workplace rights derived from EU employment laws.
In this Romanian case, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has held that monitoring the employee's private use of a business messaging account amounted to a breach of his right to private life and correspondence under art.8.
The Court of Appeal has held that the legislative provision that excludes park police constables from enjoying collective consultation rights is in breach of their, and their union's, art.11 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that the employee had no reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of inappropriate emails and photographs on his iPhone relating to a work colleague that affected the workplace.
The High Court has upheld a challenge by way of judicial review to the present criminal record checks scheme, finding that the relevant statutory provisions are incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights. Ryan Stringer sets out the implications of the decision for employers.
In this Romanian case, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) accepted that the employee's right to a private life had been affected when his employer accessed his Yahoo messages. However, the ECHR went on to hold that the employer's actions were justified in the circumstances and not in breach of art. 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
James Buckley, Iain Naylor, Chris McAvoy and Lucy Sorell are associates and Mona Jackson is a trainee solicitor at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.
In Bull and another v Hall and another [2013] UKSC 73 SC, the Supreme Court held that Christian hotel owners directly discriminated against a same-sex couple who were civil partners when they refused them a double-bedded room in accordance with their policy of letting such rooms to married couples only.