CJEU: Directive 95/46 must be interpreted in light of ECHR Article 8 right to privacy
Original title: RECHNUNGSHOF V. OSTER REICHISCHER RUNDFUNK, 20.5.2003 (“RUNDFUNK”)
Judgment
[Article 8 (Right to Private Life) of ECHR](https://docs.legal.digital/coe/#article-8): To the extent Directive 95/46 governs the processing of personal data liable to infringe fundamental freedoms, in particular the right to privacy, must be interpreted in light of that right, which forms an integral part of the general principles of EU law. [Article 8 ECHR](https://docs.legal.digital/coe/#article-8) states that public authorities must not interfere with the right to respect for private life, u
Full text 2 paragraphs
## Court Summary Lawful basis for proceeding (Necessity requirement): The CJEU held that for an employer to publish the names and incomes of employees to a third party is an interference with the right to respect for private life, protected by article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (para 74), but it might be justified if it was both necessary for and appropriate to the aim of keeping salaries within reasonable limits, (that being for the national courts to determine) ## Excerpt 82 It must next be ascertained whether the interference in question is necessary in a democratic society to achieve the legitimate aim pursued. 83 According to the European Court of Human Rights, the adjective necessary in Article 8(2) of the Convention implies that a pressing social need is involved and that the measure employed is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see, inter alia, the Gillow v. the United Kingdom judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109, § 55).
The national authorities also enjoy a margin of appreciation, the scope of which will depend not only on the nature of the legitimate aim pursued but also on the particular nature of the interference involved (see the Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, § 59). 84 The interest of the Republic of Austria in ensuring the best use of public funds, and in particular keeping salaries within reasonable limits, must be balanced against the seriousness of the interference with the right of the persons concerned to respect for their private life. 85 On the one hand, in order to monitor the proper use of public funds, the Rechnungshof and the various parliamentary bodies undoubtedly need to know the amount of expenditure on human resources in the various public bodies. In addition, in a democratic society, taxpayers and public opinion generally have the right to be kept informed of the use of public revenues, in particular as regards expenditure on staff.