CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 janvier 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 20 January 2020 Published on 10 February 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 26968/16 Fernando Augusto FLORINDO DE ALMEIDA VASCONCELOS GRAMAXO against Portugal lodged on 9 May 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s dismissal on disciplinary grounds based on data retrieved from the GPS navigator system installed in the applicant’s service car, provided by his employer company.   It raises issues under Article 8 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.   Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?   In particular:   1.1.   Was the applicant properly informed that data from the GPS installed in the company’s car could be obtained and used by his employer (see, mutatis mutandis , Bărbulescu v. Romania [GC], no. 61496/08, § 121, 5   September 2017)?   1.2.   Have the authorities fulfilled their positive obligations under Article 8 in order to ensure the protection of the applicant’s right to private life (see López Ribalda and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13, §§ 87-91 and 109-111, 17 October 2019, and Bărbulescu , cited above, §§ 109-121)?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in view of the use against him of evidence obtained from the GPS in the labour proceedings (see López Ribalda and Others, cited above, §§ 149-152 with further references)?   3.     In view of the applicant’s allegation that different Courts of Appeal had reached different conclusions in similar cases, has the principle of legal certainty, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, been respected (see Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no.   76943/11, § 116, 29 November 2016; and Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v.   Turkey [GC], no.   13279/05, §§ 49-58, 20 October 2011)?