In judgment 6 Ads 21/2026, the Supreme Administrative Court (hereinafter the "SAC") addressed the issue of the proportionality of monitoring an employee's electronic communication. Although the case concerned public service, the court's conclusions are equally applicable.
According to the allegations, a civil servant had committed several disciplinary offenses primarily concerning data leakage through the forwarding of non-anonymized documents and the distribution of documents to third parties. The employer discovered these infractions based on an audit of email communication.
The complainant (the civil servant) challenged the decision, arguing, among other things, that the evidence against him was obtained unlawfully through the monitoring of his communication. In his view, an internal regulation cannot replace the employer's obligation to properly inform the employee about monitoring.
In its decision, the SAC interpreted Section 316 of the Labour Code, which prohibits employees from abusing an employer's working tools for personal use. At the same time, this provision permits the employer to reasonably check compliance with this prohibition. However, the limit to such controls is the employee's privacy. The provision itself permits the introduction of monitoring mechanisms if required by the nature of the employer's activity, provided that the employer informs the employee of the scope and method of the monitoring.
In its interpretation, the SAC relied on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, specifically the case of Bărbulescu v. Romania. According to this judgment, the key criteria for assessing the conflict between an employee's right to privacy and the legitimate interest of an employer are in particular:
- prior notice of the possibility of monitoring;
- the extent of the monitoring;
- the existence of legitimate reasons for monitoring the communication;
- the exhaustion of less intrusive measures;
- the legitimate use of the results; and
- the existence of safeguards against abuse.
The SAC also briefly addressed the employer's information obligation toward the employee. The law does not explicitly stipulate the form for fulfilling this obligation; therefore, it can be inferred that compliance may occur through various means, such as via an internal regulation.
It follows from the above that the monitoring of an employee's electronic communication is not generally prohibited, but its use must be justified and proportionate to the pursued purpose. An employer must therefore ensure the proportionality of any interference with employee privacy and possess a specific reason for such an intervention. Failure to comply with these conditions may render the communication obtained in this manner inadmissible as evidence.
This text was translated by AI.
