CP004Reliance on material obtained in breach

Reliance in proceedings on material gathered otherwise than as a legal requirement allowed.

Pillar: CP | Consequence for the person
Sources cited: 4
Added: 30 AUGUST 2026
Updated: 5 OCTOBER 2026

Control	Jurisdiction	Source	What it establishes	Prerequisite or recommendation
CP004/EUMandatory	European Union	NTH Haustechnik GmbH v EMCourt of Justice of the European Union, Fifth Chamber · read 16 Aug 2026	That a court may rely on data obtained in breach, subject to minimization of what it admits and to considering anonymization before disclosure.	Material obtained in breach is not barred from proceedings by that alone, and a failure to inform the person does not bar it either.
CP004/ITMandatory	Italy	Sentenza n. 24204/2025Corte di Cassazione, Labour Section · read 11 Aug 2026	That personal correspondence keeps its protection on company systems, and that what is taken from it cannot be relied on in proceedings.	Material taken from personal correspondence could not be relied on, the Strasbourg case law being applied in the national setting.
CP004/LUMandatory	Luxembourg	Code du travail, articles L.261-1 and L.261-2Chambre des Députés · read 5 Oct 2026	That processing for the surveillance of employees rests only on one of the bases of article 6(1)(a) to (f) of the Regulation, that the representation of the staff is informed collectively beforehand of the purpose, the modalities, the retention, and a formal undertaking not to use the data for another purpose, that the délégation, or failing it the employees, may within 15 days ask the CNPD for a prior opinion with suspensive effect, the CNPD ruling within one month, that for three purposes articles L.211-8 and L.414-9 apply, that a complaint to the CNPD is neither a grave nor a legitimate ground of dismissal, and that breach is a criminal offence.	Breach of article L.261-1 is a criminal offence, eight days to one year of imprisonment and a fine of EUR 251 to 125,000, and the court may order the processing to cease on penalty; whether a court admits evidence so obtained is not stated by the article.
CP004/CHMandatory	Switzerland	BGE 139 II 7Bundesgericht, I. sozialrechtliche Abteilung · read 5 Oct 2026	That covert spyware on an employee’s computer for three months, taking screenshots, is behaviour monitoring prohibited by article 26 ArGV 3 and disproportionate, that a signed IT usage directive gives general notice of controls and does not authorize it, that the lawful sequence is technical prevention, then anonymized analysis of logs, then named analysis of access logs on concrete suspicion of abuse, that the evidence so obtained is excluded because the employee’s personality interest outweighs the interest in the truth, and that the dismissal resting on it was annulled.	Evidence obtained by unlawful covert monitoring is excluded where the employee’s personality interest outweighs the interest in establishing the truth, and the employer’s interest in the truth did not outweigh it.