The Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Cases Concerning Workplace Monitoring
Tomasz Mirosławski
University of Miskolc , Hungaryhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7758-7415
Michał Barański
University of Silesia in Katowice , Polandhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-6797-8124
Abstract
This article examines the principle of proportionality in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights concerning workplace monitoring under Article 8 ECHR. It contrasts two models of proportionality, interest balancing and balancing as reasoning, and show how the Court has increasingly adopted the latter in landmark judgements such as Bărbulescu v. Romania and López Ribalda and Others v. Spain. Particular emphasis is placed on the structural inequality inherent in the employment relationship, which undermines the notion of that relationship as a contract between equal parties and makes contextual, reasoning-based balancing especially relevant in cases concerning labor relations. The analysis highlights how proportionality, to a certain extent, constrains the margin of appreciation and provides normative guidance in adapting national legal frameworks to the challenges of digital surveillance. At the same time, the article cautions against an uncritical drive towards harmonization and eventual unification through instruments such as the GDPR or the AI Act, as excessive standardization may overlook the diversity of national labor markets. It also highlights the risks associated with the expanding role of the ECtHR beyond judicial review. Proportionality, understood as balancing as reasoning, therefore emerges as the suitable model for safeguarding employee privacy and dignity while preserving respect for legal and social pluralism in Europe.
Keywords:
principle of proportionality, ECtHR, ECHR, workplace monitoring, right to privacyReferences
Arabadjieva, Kalina, and Paula Franklin. “Home-Based Telework, Gender and the Public-Private Divide.” In The Future of Remote Work, edited by Nicola Countouris, Valerio De Stefano, Agnieszka Piasna, and Silvia Rainone. Brussels: ETUI, 2023.
Arai-Takahashi, Yutaka. The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR. Antwerp: Intersentia, 2002.
Arnardóttir, Oddný Mjöll. “Res Interpretata, Erga Omnes Effect and the Role of the Margin of Appreciation in Giving Domestic Effect to the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.” The European Journal of International Law 28, no. 3 (2017): 819–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chx045.
Bagchi, Aditi. “The Myth of Equality in the Employment Relation.” Michigan State Law Review (2009): 579–628. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1255&context=faculty_scholarship.
Baran, Krzysztof W. “Functions of Labour Law.” In Outline of Polish Labour Law System, edited by Krzysztof W. Baran, 33–39. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer, 2016.
Barański, Michał, and Anna Piszczek. “Employees’ Right to a Pollution-Free Working Environment in the Context of Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR.” Praca i Zabezpieczenie Społeczne 65, no. 6 (2024): 3–10. https://doi.org/10.33226/0032-6186.2024.6.2.
Barański, Michał, and Tomasz Mirosławski. “Geolocation of an Employee from the Perspective of Article 8 of the ECHR.” Acta Universitatis Sapientiae – Legal Studies 12, no. 2 (2023): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.47745/AUSLEG.2023.12.2.01.
Budd, John W., and Bhave, Devasheesh P. “The Employment Relationship: Key Elements, Alternative Frames of Reference, and Implications for HRM.” In Sage Handbook of Human Resource Management, edited by Adrian Wilkinson, Nicolas Bacon, Scott Snell, and David Lepak, 2nd ed., 41–64. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2019.
Christoffersen, Jonas. Fair Balance: Proportionality, Subsidiarity and Primarity in the European Convention on Human Rights. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Dörre-Kolasa, Dominika. “Rights and Obligations of the Parties to an Employment Relationship.” In Outline of Polish Labour Law System, edited by Krzysztof W. Baran, 256–79. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer, 2016.
Góral, Zbigniew. “Principles of Labour Law.” In Outline of Polish Labour Law System, edited by Krzysztof W. Baran, 45–73. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer, 2016.
Harris, David J., Michael O'Boyle, Edward Bates, and Carla M. Buckley. “The European Convention on Human Rights in Context.” In Harris, O'Boyle & Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, edited by David J. Harris, Michael O'Boyle, Edward Bates, and Carla M. Buckley, 2nd ed., 1–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Hendrickx, Frank. “Foundations and Functions of Contemporary Labour Law.” European Labour Law Journal 3, no. 2 (2012): 108–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/201395251200300202.
Jakab, Nóra. “Theoretical Issues of Employment Contracts and Collective Agreements on Current Regulatory Issues.” In Fundamentals of Labour Law in Central Europe, edited by Nóra Jakab, 17–35. Miskolc: Central European Academic Publishing, 2022.
Kahn-Freund, Otto. Labour and the Law. Edited by Paul Davies and Mark Freedland, 3rd ed. London: Stevens & Sons, 1983.
Kilkelly, Ursula. “The Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, Home and Correspondence.” In Harris, O'Boyle & Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, edited by David J. Harris, Michael O'Boyle, Edward Bates, and Carla M. Buckley, 2nd ed., 361–424. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Kobroń-Gąsiorowska, Łucja. “Interes publiczny jako element podstawowy funkcji ochronnej prawa pracy – w kontekście ochrony sygnalistów.” Rocznik Administracji i Prawa 1, no. 19 (2019): 333–43. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0013.3605.
Kratochvíl, Jan. “The Inflation of the Margin of Appreciation by the European Court of Human Rights.” Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 29, no. 3 (2011): 324–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/016934411102900304.
Latos, Bartłomiej. Klauzula derogacyjna i imitacyjna w Europejskiej Konwencji o Ochronie Praw Człowieka i Podstawowych Wolności. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Sejmowe, 2008.
Liszcz, Teresa. Prawo Pracy. Warszawa: LexisNexis, 2009.
Michalska, Magdalena. “Zasada proporcjonalności w orzecznictwie TK i ETPC – analiza prawno-porównawcza.” Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia nad Prawem 14, no. 2 (2022): 80–98. https://doi.org/10.7206/kp.2080-1084.524.
Möller, Kai. “Proportionality: Challenging the Critics.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 10, no. 3 (2012): 709–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mos024.
Mowbray, Alastair. “A Study of the Principle of Fair Balance in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.” Human Rights Law Review 10, no. 2 (2010): 289–317. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngq006.
O’Donnell, Thomas A. “The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Standards in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.” Human Rights Quarterly 4, no. 4 (1982): 474–96. https://doi.org/10.2307/762206.
Pisarczyk, Łukasz. “Przeobrażenia prawa pracy a jego funkcja ochronna.” In Studia Prawnicze: Rozprawy i Materiały – Prokatywna funkcja prawa pracy?, edited by Barbara Wagner and Ewa Hoffmańska, 15–45. Kraków: Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM, 2010.
Pius XI. Quadragesimo Anno. Encyclical Letter on the Reconstruction of the Social Order. Vatican City: Vatican Press, 1931.
Stępkowski, Aleksander. Zasada proporcjonalności w europejskiej kulturze prawnej: sądowa kontrola władzy dyskrecjonalnej w nowoczesnej Europie. Warszawa: Liber, 2010.
Trykhlib, Kristina. “The Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.” EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC) 4 (2020): 128–54. https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/11899.
Wieczorek, Mariusz. “Some Aspects of Labour Law’s Protective Function at the Time of COVID-19.” Studia Iuridica Lublinensia 30, no. 1 (2021): 339–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2021.30.1.339-355.
Wiśniewski, Adam. “Proporcjonalność i fair balance w orzecznictwie Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka.” Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze 42, no. 2 (2019): 57–70. https://gsp.ug.edu.pl/index.php/gdanskie_studia_prawnicze/article/view/5262.
University of Miskolc https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7758-7415
