>Re the HRA the operative question is 'his
> correspondence' If applying to emails does the term 'his correspondence'
> imply the email owner is the author as employee
> not the employer?
>
If an employee writes an e-mail in a work capacity, it's not 'his
correspondence'. However if the employer allows private use of e-mail (and I
think that would include tacit permission when a formal policy says
something else), I would suggest that private messages would be. The
employer can still interfere (because Art 8.2 would seemingly allow a court
or tribunal to interfere by allowing employers to do so where that is to
protect rights and freedoms of others or health or morals).
>Re 2 Point taken re the potential for continued dispute re the level of
> court decision made in. Do you have the case name? Re the UTC Contract
> Regulations 1999 one of your observations being why does the OIC need the
> powers afforded to the Qulaifying bodies give he has the principles. Isn't
> this due to the fact that a failure to follow a principle is not a proven
> DPA breach until an enforcement notice served and not followed. An
> enforcement can also be challenged by a controller if they so choose
> delaying enforcement. Is there such a challenge possible if the powers of
> a
> Qualifying body is exercised under UCTR 1999?
>
Yikes, I've got too much work to do to get into untangling that for fun!
Paul
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
