CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 juin 2021

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 12 July 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 35075/18 Z against Russia lodged on 5 July 2018 communicated on 21 June 2021   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, a municipal teacher, was dismissed from his post for “immoral behaviour” after a surveillance software making regular screenshots had been installed on his work computer and it had been discovered that he had used Internet to consult and download same-sex pornographic content.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the installation of a surveillance software on the applicant’s work computer amount to an interference with his right to respect for private life and correspondence under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Libert v.   France , no. 588/13, §§ 37-42, 22 February 2018)? If so, was that interference compatible with the requirements of Article 8 § 2? In particular: (i)     Was the interference prescribed by law? Do the legal framework governing secret surveillance in the workplace provide for adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse (see Bărbulescu v. Romania [GC], no.   61496/08, § 119, 120 and 122, 5 September 2017; López Ribalda and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13, § 119, 17 October 2019, and Libert, cited above, § 44)? (ii)     Did the interference pursue a legitimate aim? (iii)     Was the interference “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? Did the domestic courts adduce “relevant” and “sufficient” reasons for the interference? In particular, did they weigh up the various competing interests taking account of all the relevant factors established in the Court’s case-law (see Bărbulescu , cited above, § 121; López Ribalda and Others, cited above, § 116; and and Libert, cited above, § 47)?