| Applicant name | MAZUR |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | MOLDOVA |
| Application no. | 26476/14 |
| Date | 14/02/2023 |
| Judges | Jovan Ilievski, President, Lorraine Schembri Orland, Diana Sârcu |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Not necessary (rights and freedoms of others) |
| Type of privacy | Informational privacy |
| Keywords | Surveillance |
| Facts of the case | The applicants complained under Article 8 of the Convention about the authorities’ obtaining and using data concerning the phone calls which they made to each other. |
| Analysis | It is apparent that the applicants were not notified in advance of the possibility that the flow of their communications might be monitored and used. The Government’s assertion that the first applicant was informed about that orally is not supported by any evidence. Moreover, there were serious consequences of the monitoring for the first applicant – he was dismissed, partly based on the results of the monitoring. In this case, the procecutor did not simply verify information routinely provided by the mobile phone operator about the first applicant’s phone calls, but specifically asked for and obtained detailed information which would not normally be made available. The domestic courts did not examine, given the context of an attempt to have the first applicant dismissed in the months prior to the monitoring and the extraordinary steps taken to obtain information about his phone calls and its use to dismiss him again, whether the reasons for such monitoring went beyond an employer’s wish to keep its staff at optimal operating efficiency and in fact were retaliatory in nature, specifically targeting the first applicant in order to secure his repeated dismissal. The compilation and use of the applicants’ personal data was therefore not “necessary in a democratic society”. |
| Other Article violation? | No violation P1-1 |
| Damage awarded | Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants; |
| Documents | Judgment |