RECHNUNGSHOF V. OSTER REICHISCHER RUNDFUNK, 20.5.2003 (“RUNDFUNK”)

Personal Data: The collection of data by name relating to an individual’s professional income, with a view to communicating it to third parties, falls within the scope of Article 8. The ECtHR has held that communication of the data infringes the right of the persons concerned to respect for private life. (¶¶ 73–74)

First of all, the collection of data by name relating to an individual's professional income, with a view to communicating it to third parties, falls within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention. The European Court of Human Rights has held in this respect that the expression ‘private life’ must not be interpreted restrictively and that ‘there is no reason of principle to justify excluding activities of a professional ... nature from the notion of “private life”’ (see, inter alia, Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 65, ECHR 2000-II and Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 43, ECHR 2000-V).

It necessarily follows that, while the mere recording by an employer of data by name relating to the remuneration paid to his employees cannot as such constitute an interference with private life, the communication of that data to third parties, in the present case a public authority, infringes the right of the persons concerned to respect for private life, whatever the subsequent use of the information thus communicated, and constitutes an interference within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.