Previous UK and European cases have supported the view that an employee having a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when monitoring employee communications.  It was therefore key that a very clear IT policy informed employees that work monitored emails, instant messages etc.

 
The most recent European case saw Mr Bărbulescu (employed by a heating company) as an engineer in charge of sales. At his employer's request, he set up a Yahoo Messenger account to deal with client enquiries. The company's policies strictly prohibited any personal use of its IT equipment and he was informed of the same.
 
On 13 July 2007, the employer informed Mr Bărbulescu that it had monitored his Yahoo Messenger communications over the course of a week and that it considered he had used it for personal purposes in contravention of the employer's IT usage policy.
 
Mr Bărbulescu replied in writing that he had only used it for professional purposes. The employer then produced a 45-page transcript of his Messenger communications over the week in question, which included the text of the messages he had exchanged with his brother and his fiancée during that time.  Some of the messages were very intimate in nature.
 
On 1 August 2007, the employer dismissed Mr Bărbulescu for unauthorised personal use of the internet.
 
Mr Bărbulescu brought an action in the Romanian courts to challenge his dismissal, but this was unsuccessful. The court found that the employer was entitled to check that work was being done properly, and that Mr Bărbulescu had been given adequate notice, both of the rule against personal use of company resources and of the fact that surveillance would be undertaken. It also noted that, since Mr Bărbulescu had claimed that he had only used the account for professional purposes, the monitoring of his messages was the only way for the employer to verify this.
 
Mr Bărbulescu appealed and brought a claim against the Romanian government in the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that it had failed to protect his rights to privacy and correspondence under Article 8.
 
The Grand Chamber upheld the appeal and found that Mr Bărbulescu’s Article 8 rights had been infringed. The court held that the Romanian courts had not adequately protected Mr Bărbulescu’s right to respect for his private life and correspondence, and that they had failed to strike a fair balance between the relevant competing interests.