Skip to main content

Insight article

December 20, 2019

Human rights, employment and social media

The European Court of Human Rights has held that the dismissal of an employee for writing a social blog could be a violation of their human rights under the right to freedom of expression.

In the case of Herbai v Hungary, an HR manager, Mr Herbai, was dismissed following his two blog posts on HR strategy and tax rates. In his blog, Mr Herbai described himself as an HR expert in management at a large bank. When this came to his employer’s attention, he was dismissed on the grounds that his conduct had damaged the bank’s economic interests and breached its confidentiality standards.

The Hungarian Supreme Court upheld the bank’s decision to dismiss Mr Herbai on the grounds that his conduct had endangered the bank’s business interests.

Mr Herbai appealed the decision because the termination of his employment had breached his freedom of expression rights under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.

Article 10 confirms an individual’s right to freedom of expression and information, subject to certain restrictions that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society”. This right includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas.

The court considered four elements relevant to the restriction of free speech in the context of an employment relationship:

  1. The nature of the speech
    The court rejected the bank’s argument that Article 10 did not apply as the published comments were addressed to HR professionals rather than the public.
  2. The motives of the author
    The motive was simply to share knowledge with a professional readership.
  3. The damage caused by the speech to the employer
    The bank made no attempt to demonstrate how the speech could have adversely affected its interests.
  4. The severity of the sanction imposed.
    Clearly, Mr Herbai had suffered a severe penalty, as he had been dismissed without any lesser sanction being considered.

The European Court of Human Rights found that the Hungarian courts had failed to balance an individual’s right to freedom of expression and an employer’s right to protect its legitimate business interests. They, therefore, did not discharge their positive obligations under Article 10.

Employers need to be vigilant so as not to violate employees’ rights in relation to freedom of expression. It is always advisable to take legal advice before dismissing an employee.

If you have a query about the dismissal of an employee or any other employment enquiries, call Karen Cole today.

Note: This is not legal advice; it provides information of general interest about current legal issues.

Stay in touch

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay in touch

By completing your details and submitting this form you confirm you are happy for us to send you marketing communications and that you agree to our Website Privacy Policy and Legal Notice and to us using Mailchimp to process your data.


Sending

News/Insight

  • Supporting neurodiverse people in family law matters
    Understanding neurodiversity in the legal context.


    Read more
  • Supreme court ruling on referees’ employment status
    In PGMOL v HMRC, the Supreme Court considered whether professional referees were self-employed. The case has the potential for far-reaching implications across the employment world.


    Read more
  • Business First Magazine
    Read our expert insights on key workplace and corporate issues.


    Read more
  • Why is clear contract drafting important?
    How simple contract clauses can protect your business.


    Read more
  • Ensuring equality: A legal guide to responsibilities and compliance
    Understanding equal opportunities in the workplace


    Read more

What they say...

  • Anon, April 2025
    “Whistleblowing dismissal claim and settlement negotiations I can not speak highly enough of this firm and [Patrick Simpson], they were not only understanding of my case needs they also worked with the up most integrity and professionalism to e

  • Patrick, April 2025
    “We had a long process handled by Charlotte & James from RIAA Barker Gillette. Even though we were outside the UK Charlotte & James we’re always available and we developed a great working relationship with them.They gave sound advice,

  • Leann Paris, March 2025
    “From the beginning to the end, the support we have received throughout the case with all the staff members has been far more than we expected, we got kept up to date with every single matter, I have had stressful few years but Charlotte and he

  • C Smith, March 2025
    “As executor of a will it was a relief for a solicitor to act on my behalf as though no disputes it was still a lengthy and complex process. It was dealt with mostly by Charlotte B. who kept me informed at all times. She explained the process c

  • Marc, March 2025
    “RIAA Barker Gillette were engaged to handle a real estate transaction with unusual circumstances. As a non-UK resident unfamiliar with English conveyancing procedures, I felt completely satisfied with the depth of the information and explanati

Read more
Send this to a friend