View source for CA Paris - 25/04270

{{COURTdecisionBOX

|Jurisdiction=France
|Court-BG-Color=
|Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png
|Court_Abbrevation=CA Paris
|Court_Original_Name=Cour d'appel de Paris
|Court_English_Name=Paris Court of Appeal
|Court_With_Country=CA Paris (France)

|Case_Number_Name=25/04270
|ECLI=

|Original_Source_Name_1=Court de Cassation
|Original_Source_Link_1=https://www.courdecassation.fr/decision/69450ecb75782d5f06ade99c
|Original_Source_Language_1=French
|Original_Source_Language__Code_1=FR
|Original_Source_Name_2=
|Original_Source_Link_2=
|Original_Source_Language_2=
|Original_Source_Language__Code_2=

|Date_Decided=18.12.2025
|Date_Published=
|Year=2025

|GDPR_Article_1=Article 15 GDPR
|GDPR_Article_Link_1=Article 15 GDPR
|GDPR_Article_2=
|GDPR_Article_Link_2=
|GDPR_Article_3=
|GDPR_Article_Link_3=

|EU_Law_Name_1=
|EU_Law_Link_1=
|EU_Law_Name_2=
|EU_Law_Link_2=

|National_Law_Name_1=Article 145 Code of Civil Procedure
|National_Law_Link_1=
|National_Law_Name_2=
|National_Law_Link_2=
|National_Law_Name_3=
|National_Law_Link_3=

|Party_Name_1=
|Party_Link_1=
|Party_Name_2=
|Party_Link_2=

|Appeal_From_Body=Le conseil de prud'hommes de Paris (France)
|Appeal_From_Case_Number_Name=
|Appeal_From_Status=
|Appeal_From_Link=
|Appeal_To_Body=
|Appeal_To_Case_Number_Name=
|Appeal_To_Status=Unknown
|Appeal_To_Link=

|Initial_Contributor=dt
|
}}

A court held that a former employee cannot request access to their work email correspondence and other work-related files when the emails and files only contain the employee’s identification information.

== English Summary ==

=== Facts ===
A professional notaries’ association (the controller) hired an accounting inspector (the data subject) in 2024. 

A year later, the controller dismissed the data subject for reasons related to his performance at work. 

Following his dismissal, the data subject requested the disclosure of his personal data including his work emails and other files. A month later, he filed an application with the Paris Labour Court seeking an order requiring the controller to provide him with the documents. The Paris Labour Court found that there were no grounds for the request. 

The data subject appealed the decision and argued in favour of obtaining access to his personal data in accordance with [[Article 15 GDPR]]. The data subject further claimed that the requested documents would enable him to respond to the decision of his dismissal.

=== Holding ===
The Paris Court of Appeal held that the purpose of [[Article 15 GDPR]] is not to obtain copies of professional email correspondence of an employee in the course of his work, of which he is aware and which contains only his identity. Instead, the court noted that the purpose of the article is to enable the data subject to check that processing complies with the law, to check the accuracy of the data and, if needed, to ask for the rectification or erasure of the data. 

Furthermore, the Court noted that the controller sent the data subject a copy of his entire personnel file. Moreover, analysing the request from the perspective of Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it concluded that the requested documents would not serve the data subject in appealing his dismissal. 

Therefore, the Court rejected the data subject’s appeal.

== 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.

<pre>
December 18, 2025
Paris Court of Appeal
Case No. 25/04270

Division 6 - Chamber 2

Text of the Decision

Enforceable Copies FRENCH REPUBLIC

issued on: IN THE NAME OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE

PARIS COURT OF APPEAL

Division 6 - Chamber 2

JUDGMENT OF DECEMBER 18, 2025

(No., 7 pages)

General Registry Number: Case No. 25/04270 - Portalis No. 35L7-V-B7J-CLPKL

Decision appealed: Order of April 14, 2025 - Labor Court - Joint Panel of PARIS - Case No. 25/00280

APPELLANT :

Mr. [R] [K] Profession: Accounting Inspector

[Address 2]

[Location 5]

Represented by Mr. Frédéric CHHUM, Attorney at Law, Paris Bar, Case No.: A0929

RESPONDENT:

Association [8], registered under number [SIREN/SIRET No. 3], acting through its President, legal representative residing at its registered office,

[Address 1]

[Location 4]

Represented by Ms. Karine BÉZILLE, Attorney at Law, Paris Bar, Case No.: P0238, substituted by Ms. Claudia MEDINA OLIVEIRA, Attorney at Law, Paris Bar,

COMPOSITION OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to Articles 805 and 906 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the case was heard on November 26, 2025, in open court. The attorneys were not present. Having not objected, the parties were heard by Ms. Christine LAGARDE, Judge, who was responsible for the report.

This judge reported on the arguments presented during the deliberations of the Court, composed of:

Marie-Paule ALZEARI, President

Eric LEGRIS, President

Christine LAGARDE, Judge

Clerk during the proceedings: Ms. Sophie CAPITAINE

JUDGMENT:

- Contradictory

- by making the judgment available at the Court Registry, the parties having been previously notified under the conditions stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 450 of the Code of Civil Procedure

- signed by Marie-Paule ALZEARI, President, and by Sophie CAPITAINE, Clerk, to whom the original copy of the decision was given by the signing judge.

STATEMENT OF THE DISPUTE:

The [10] [Location 14] [11] (the Chamber) is a professional association that brings together notaries from [Location 14], Seine-[Location 16], and Val-de-Marne.

Mr. [R] [K] was hired by the Chamber under a permanent contract with an annual work schedule of 215 days, effective January 29, 2024, as an accounting inspector.

On January 10, 2025, the Chamber summoned Mr. [K] to a preliminary meeting regarding possible dismissal, scheduled for January 20, 2025. On January 29, 2025, it notified him of his dismissal for professional incompetence, waiving the notice period.

On February 10, 2025, Mr. [K] requested by mail the release of his personal data, specifically his work email and folders stored on his computer's hard drive and remote desktop, respectively titled "Private and Personal" and "Private and Personal Space," pursuant to Articles 12 et seq. of EU Regulation 206/679 (GDPR).

On March 10, 2025, Mr. [K] filed an application for interim relief with the Paris Industrial Tribunal seeking an order compelling the Chamber to release these documents to him pursuant to Article 145 of the French Code of Civil Procedure and the GDPR.

On April 14, 2025, the Paris Industrial Tribunal issued the following interim order:

"FINDS that there is no basis for interim relief regarding the requests of Mr. [R] [K];

" The court finds that there is no basis for summary proceedings regarding the application of ASSOCIATION [6] under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure;

Mr. [R] [K] is ordered to pay costs.

On May 30, 2025, Mr. [K] appealed this decision.

CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES:

In his final submissions filed electronically on November 10, 2025, Mr. [K] requests the court to:

"Having regard to Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

Having regard to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR),

Having regard to Article 6-1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guaranteeing the right to a fair trial,

- FIND Mr. [R] [K]'s appeal admissible and well-founded;

" - REVERSE the order of the Paris Industrial Tribunal of April 14, 2025, insofar as it ruled that there was no basis for summary proceedings regarding Mr. [K]'s claims and ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings;

Ruling anew:

- ORDER [7] to provide Mr. [R] [K], within 15 days of notification of this order and under penalty of €200 per day of delay, with the following data:

o All emails received and sent to or from his professional email account from his hiring on January 29, 2024, until his dismissal on January 29, 2025;

o The folder saved on his work computer's hard drive under the heading "PRIVATE and PERSONAL" within the "Documents" directory; and

o The file saved on the remote desktop of [9] under the heading "PRIVATE AND PERSONAL SPACE" within the "Documents" folder.

- ORDER [7] to pay Mr. [K] the sum of €4,000 pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In its final submissions filed electronically on November 13, 2025, the Chamber requests the court to:

- Declare Mr. [K]'s appeal admissible but unfounded;

Consequently:

- Uphold the order issued on May 30, 2025, by the summary proceedings division of the Paris Industrial Tribunal insofar as it dismissed all of Mr. [K]'s claims.

Adding thereto:

- Order Mr. [K] to pay [11] the sum of €3,000 pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the appeal proceedings;

- Order Mr. [K] to pay all costs.

The case was closed on November 14, 2025.

At the hearing on November 26, 2025, the court suggested that the parties consider mediation and meet with a mediator, who was present at the hearing, to discuss this option, which the parties agreed to.

The court was subsequently informed that the parties did not agree to mediation.

For a more detailed account of the facts of the case and the parties' claims, express reference is made to the documents in the file and the pleadings filed, in accordance with the provisions of Article 455 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION:

Regarding the request for disclosure of documents:

Mr. [K] argues that:

- In accordance with Article 15 of the GDPR, he has the right to access his personal data, including his professional email address, as well as two personal files that he has identified.

- The Chamber's refusal to disclose these documents constitutes a violation of the provisions of [15].

- The requested documents are inaccessible to him and would allow him to respond to the grievances cited in support of his dismissal, which constitutes a legitimate reason.

- The fixed-day work agreement should be deemed null and void since the Chamber of Notaries has not respected the maximum working hours, rest periods, or reasonable workload. Disclosure of these documents would thus allow him to establish the number of overtime hours worked and the amount of damages.

- [12] acknowledges that it is not possible to invoke trade secrecy against an employee when they are the recipient or sender of correspondence.

The Chamber argues that:

- [15] is not a legal tool allowing employees to request documents, but only the personal data contained therein, and Mr. [K] cannot obtain access to the documents concerning notarial offices on this basis.

- The Chamber has already responded to Mr. [K] by sending him all the documents containing his personal data, excluding those that infringe upon the rights of third parties.

- Mr. [K] has provided no legitimate grounds justifying the disclosure of the requested documents.

- The disclosure of documents relating to notarial offices infringes upon the rights of third parties and professional secrecy. Under the heading 'private and personal' or 'private and personal space' of her professional email account, there are files relating to the structure of the [9], partners, employees, clients, suppliers, cash flow, and the framework for financial statements.

- The disclosure of these documents is not necessary for the exercise of the right to evidence, given that she is particularly precise regarding the reasons for her dismissal, and in no case is it justified to disclose the entire professional email account, and the request is neither limited nor specific.

- She complied with the contractual provisions relating to monitoring employee workload.

Regarding requests for disclosure of documents based on compliance with [15]:

Therefore,

Pursuant to point (1) of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (GDPR), 'personal data' means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (hereinafter referred to as 'data subject').

An 'identifiable natural person' is any natural person who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier, or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural, or social identity of that natural person.

According to Article 15, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the GDPR concerning the "Right of access of the data subject", the data subject has the right to obtain from the controller confirmation as to whether or not personal data concerning him or her are being processed, and, where that is the case, access to the personal data. The controller shall provide a copy of the personal data undergoing processing, provided that the right to obtain a copy does not adversely affect the rights and freedoms of others.

However, the purpose of [15] is not to obtain a copy of the professional email correspondence sent or received by the employee in the course of their work, which they have, by definition, had full access to, and which, unless they can prove otherwise that it is personal, contains only their identification (here, Mr. [K]'s email address and name) as personal data, which is not the case here.

Indeed, the right of access provided for in Article 15 of [15] aims to allow the person exercising it to verify the compliance of the processing of their personal data with the requirements of the regulation, to verify the accuracy of the data and, if necessary, to have it rectified or erased.

If personal data relates in particular to racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, sexual orientation, trade union membership, genetic data, identity data, biometric data, geolocation data, profile, identification number, surname, first name, telephone or vehicle registration number, postal or email address, and in the context of this dispute, Mr. [K]'s professional email address and name, other documents or emails sent or received by him, or other documents he requests and which are contained in files he has created labeled "private and personal" and "private and personal space," do not constitute personal data within the meaning of Article 15 of the GDPR.

Therefore, this request could not be granted under these regulations, especially since the Chamber sent Mr. [K] on January 29, 2025, a copy of his entire personnel file: [diploma, job offer, CV, probationary period renewal, inter-company medical certificate, health insurance affiliation, prior declaration of employment, employment contract, collective bargaining agreement affiliation form, IBAN, health insurance certificate, annual performance review and interview for managers on a fixed-day contract, acknowledgment of receipt by Mr. [K] of various documents (internal regulations, teleworking charter, IT charter and personal data protection charter), payslips from January 2024 to March 2025, the 7-page letter of dismissal for professional incompetence, the employer's certificate intended for [13], the work certificate, and the final settlement receipt].

Regarding the request for disclosure of documents made pursuant to Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

Therefore,

According to Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if there is a legitimate reason to preserve or establish, before any trial, evidence of facts upon which the outcome of a dispute may depend, legally admissible investigative measures may be ordered at the request of any interested party.

The assessment of the existence of a legitimate interest within the meaning of Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure falls within the discretionary power of the trial judges.

It must be considered that the lower court judges ruled prior to the appellant's filing of the substantive claim with the labor court.

Having regard to Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Articles 9 of the Civil Code and 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data:

According to the first of the aforementioned texts, if there is a legitimate reason to preserve or establish, before any trial, evidence of facts upon which the outcome of a dispute may depend, legally admissible investigative measures may be ordered at the request of any interested party. Furthermore, Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 9 of the Civil Code, and Article 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulate that the right to evidence may justify the production of material that infringes upon private life, provided that such production is essential to the exercise of this right and that the infringement is proportionate to the objective pursued.

It is therefore incumbent upon the judge hearing a request for the production of documents under Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, firstly, to determine whether such production is necessary for the exercise of the right to evidence in the challenge to the dismissal and the payment of overtime, and proportionate to the objective pursued, and whether there is thus a legitimate reason to preserve or establish, before any trial, evidence of facts upon which the outcome of a dispute may depend; secondly, whether the evidence whose production is requested is likely to infringe upon the privacy of other employees, to verify which measures are essential to the exercise of the right to evidence and proportionate to the objective pursued, if necessary by automatically limiting the scope of the requested production of documents, particularly in light of the facts invoked in support of the request and the nature of the documents requested.

In this case, Mr. [K] was dismissed for professional incompetence for the reasons explained in the letter of January 29, 2025, and is requesting documents to prepare a substantive legal claim, to contest the grounds for his dismissal, and to initiate legal proceedings concerning his working hours (payment of overtime and damages).

Regarding the challenge to the dismissal, the Chamber's notification letter provides a precise and detailed description of the errors and negligence in the accounting controls of the offices that led to the dismissal for professional incompetence, namely:

- errors in reading and understanding accounting documents in two identified files, one of which involved an error in indicating the amount of withdrawals for a study, with Mr. [K] having indicated €525,000 instead of €284,000. The Chamber concluded on this point that "this type of error in reading a general ledger carries a significant risk of failing to detect anomalies";

- an error in reading a dashboard for a file referenced by number;

- misreading and misunderstanding four bank reconciliations;

- erroneous numerical data reported in the inspection report;

- A lack of controls on significant amounts: uncontrolled destinations of client funds, a fee discount granted to a client (€2,638,481.00 out of a total of €2,649,342.00) not mentioned in the summary report;

- Erroneous remarks and assessments.

All remarks relate to files referenced by their number and concern specific documents.

Mr. [K] has his annual performance review, which took place on November 4, 2024, three months before his dismissal and nine months after the signing of his employment contract. This review includes his manager's observations on the quality of his work, as well as the November 4, 2024, review for managers on a fixed-day contract, in which Mr. [K] made no comments regarding his workload or the balance between his professional and personal life.

At the conclusion of each of these interviews, Mr. [K] thanked the Chamber for its welcome, stated that he was proud to be part of the inspection department, and reported no difficulties that could have led to errors in his audits or an excessive workload that could have resulted in such errors or working hours outside the scope of his fixed-day contract, even though a redistribution of cases had taken place and he neither alleged nor demonstrated that he had notified his employer of any complaints regarding his workload.

Thus, the first judge was correct in finding that Mr. [K] provided no evidence to support a legitimate reason and thus justify the forced production of documents, even though Mr. [K] continued to have access to his professional equipment when he was informed on January 10, 2025, of his summons to a preliminary interview regarding possible dismissal, scheduled for January 20, 2025, while the interview in November 2024 had already highlighted "deficiencies."

Furthermore, regarding the documents and files whose disclosure is requested, the Chamber invited Mr. [K] by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt dated April 8, 2025, which was undisputedly received by Mr. [K] on April 9, 2025, to come to the Chamber so that "together, and by mutual agreement, we can separate the professional files that you cannot retrieve from the personal files that I will then send you before deleting all the files."

The Chamber invited Mr. [K] to an appointment on April 10, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. for the opening of the files by a bailiff in order to draw up an official report. A telephone number was provided should the appointment need to be rescheduled "due to a scheduling conflict," and it was specified that this appointment would take place with or without his presence, and that Mr. [K] had already been contacted to arrange a meeting for this purpose.

In response, by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt dated April 9, 2025, Mr. [K] indicated that he was unable to attend the following day and requested that the appointment be postponed until after the hearing before the labor court scheduled for April 14, 2025.

It should be noted that he did not contact the telephone number provided in the Chamber's letter to reschedule the appointment.

The official report of the bailiff dated April 10, 2025, indicates that Mr. [K] was absent and that after a 20-minute wait, he began his observations on the computer in use.

Screenshots were taken at each stage of the observations, both on the hard drive and on the remote desktop.

In the "Private and Personal" folder located within the "Documents" folder on the hard drive, there are several subfolders, one of which, titled "Outlook File Backup," contains files related to completed inspections and correspondence and documents exchanged with the firms. The same observation was made in the "Private and Personal Space" folder on the remote connection.

This information was exchanged and collected within the scope of Mr. [K]'s primary duties concerning the inspection and monitoring of notarial offices' accounting records, particularly regarding disciplinary matters, and, as a secondary task, answering questions from offices concerning the application of fees and jurisdictional rules, general duties related to professional ethics and the financial management of offices, and the verification of taxed statements. This information is not necessary for establishing the right to evidence in contesting the dismissal and overtime, as explained above.

Finally, disclosing the entire contents of his inbox, including emails sent and received to or from his email account, is not useful for proving the alleged overtime, especially since the timing of email exchanges and receipts does not provide evidence of actual working hours, and is certainly not useful for demonstrating a breach of maximum working hours or a reasonable workload. It is no more useful for challenging the dismissal for professional incompetence, since the Chamber based its decision on a specific number of referenced files, and not on general observations or considerations.

Therefore, in light of the above, the documents whose disclosure is requested are not necessary for exercising the right to evidence in the challenge to the dismissal and the claim for payment of overtime, especially since the documents whose disclosure is requested are likely to infringe on trade secrets and the confidentiality of personal data concerning both the notarial offices inspected and the notaries themselves and their clients, and in any event, ordering such a measure would be manifestly disproportionate to the objective pursued.

In light of the foregoing, Mr. [K]'s claims will be dismissed, and the appealed order should be overturned insofar as it ruled that there was no basis for summary proceedings.

Regarding costs and Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

Mr. [K], whose claims are unsuccessful, is ordered to pay costs and his claim under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure is dismissed.

However, Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure is awarded to the Chamber.

FOR THESE REASONS

The Court, ruling publicly, by adversarial judgment,

SET ASIDE the order insofar as it held that there was no basis for summary proceedings on the claims of Mr. [R] [K];

Ruling anew and adding:

DISMISSES Mr. [R] [K]'s request for disclosure of documents;

ORDERS Mr. [R] [K] to pay the costs of the appeal;

ORDERS Mr. [R] [K] to pay [10] [Location 14] the sum of 3,000 euros pursuant to Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Clerk The President
</pre>