Cass. - CCASS:2023:SO00231: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{COURTdecisionBOX |Jurisdiction=France |Court-BG-Color= |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png |Court_Abbrevation=Cass. |Court_Original_Name=Cour de Cassation |Court_English_Name=Supre...") |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|Court_Original_Name=Cour de Cassation | |Court_Original_Name=Cour de Cassation | ||
|Court_English_Name=Supreme Civil Court | |Court_English_Name=Supreme Civil Court | ||
|Court_With_Country= | |Court_With_Country=Cour de Cassation (France) | ||
|Case_Number_Name=CCASS:2023:SO00231 | |Case_Number_Name=CCASS:2023:SO00231 | ||
Revision as of 12:51, 21 March 2023
| Cass. - CCASS:2023:SO00231 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | Cour de Cassation (France) |
| Jurisdiction: | France |
| Relevant Law: | Article 4 GDPR Article 5(1)(a) GDPR Article 5(1)(b) GDPR Article 5(1)(f) GDPR Article 5(1)(e) GDPR Article 6 GDPR Article 32 GDPR 145 CPC |
| Decided: | |
| Published: | 08.03.2023 |
| Parties: | |
| National Case Number/Name: | CCASS:2023:SO00231 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | |
| Appeal from: | |
| Appeal to: | |
| Original Language(s): | French |
| Original Source: | Légifrance (in French) |
| Initial Contributor: | Jennifer Vidal Ferreira |
The French Supreme Civil Court held that the right of personal data protection must be balanced when it comes in conflict with the right to proof to guarantee gender equality.
English Summary
Facts
An ex-employee has started a labor dispute against her ex-employer and its subsidiary alleging gender inequality regarding her male colleagues which has had occupied the same job position earning a higher salary comparing with her.
During the dispute the companies were obliged to present the payrolls of 8 male employees which would expose their personal data such as payments, name, surname and the amount earned per year.
In order to avoid the payrolls demonstration the companies called on GDPR alleging that the Court, when asking for this information, would be violating purpose limitation, lawfulness, fairness, transparency, limitation storage, confidentiality and integrity principles in addition to Articles 4, 6 and 32. The companies also said that that were no proportionality between the violation of the data subjects rights involved and the pursued aim (salary equalization).
Holding
The Court rejected the argument of the companies highlighting that data protection right, as a fundamental right, can be object of balancing when comes into conflict with other fundamental rights in order to guarantee the proportionality principle. The same principle must be observed when balancing the private life of the employees and the right of proof having in mind its necessity and the pursued aim.
The Court has manifested that the payrolls presentation was imperative to ensure the right to proof and the objective of ensuring equal pay regardless of gender.
Comment
Share your comments here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the French original. Please refer to the French original for more details.
