CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 décembre 2022

.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 } Published on 19 December 2022   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 46704/16 Petro Dmytrovych GUYVAN against Ukraine lodged on 26 September 2016 communicated on 2 December 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns an alleged violation of the applicant’s privacy under Article 8 of the Convention, namely the processing of data from the work mobile telephone of the applicant by his employer in the context of an internal investigation and the refusal by the employer to inform him about the data thus collected. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life or his correspondence, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2 (see, mutatis mutandis , Copland v.   the   United Kingdom , no. 62617/00, §§ 41-49, ECHR 2007 ‑ I, and Bărbulescu v.   Romania [GC], no. 61496/08, §§ 119-123, 5 September 2017 (extracts))?