CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juillet 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s4954B46 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:justify } Communicated on 8 July 2020 Published on 27 July 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 46343/19 Vesna TOMIĆ against Croatia lodged on 26 August 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, who was a public servant, was dismissed from work because she had, among other things, used her office phone for private purposes. The domestic courts held that two of the three grounds for the applicant’s dismissal had been unfounded, but upheld her dismissal due to the unauthorised use of her office phone for private purposes. The applicant complains, relying on Article 8 of the Convention and the Court’s findings in Copland v. the United Kingdom , no. 62617/00, ECHR 2007 ‑ I, that the recording and use of data on her phone conversations with her family members had been in breach of her right to respect for her private life and correspondence.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life   and correspondence on account of the monitoring of her office phone and the use of collected data to justify her dismissal?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law in terms of Article 8 §   2 of the Convention? In particular, what was the legal basis for the monitoring of the applicant’s phone conversations by her employer? Was the interference necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 8 §   2 of the Convention?