The surprising judgment of the Court of Cassation

Can an employee ask his employer to have access to emails he received. In addition, sent via his professional messaging in order to produce them as evidence within the framework of a trial? Furthermore, In a judgment dated June 18. For example, 2025, the Court of Cassation considers that these emails constitute personal data within the meaning of the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations). Meanwhile, The employer must therefore allow access unless their content affects the rights and freedoms of others.

Licensed for serious misconduct – Surprising judgment court cassation

The case concerns a former associate director. In addition, who had been dismissed for serious misconduct on March 30, 2018, and had challenged this decision before the industrial tribunal. Similarly, In this case. However, the employer justified his decision by acts of sexual harassment and sexist acts which the employee would have been guilty.

Before the judges. Nevertheless, the surprising judgment court cassation former employee had invoked the absence of a real and serious cause in dismissal, the nullity of the day package agreement and the non-compliance with the right of access to his data, in this case to emails that he had sent and received via his professional messaging and whom he wanted to use as evidence. “Often. as part of a disciplinary procedure of up to a dismissal for serious misconduct, the employer proceeds, the time of the procedure, to a layoff, which means in practice that the employee leaves the company very quickly and no longer has access to his mailbox and other professional tools”sheds light on Stéphanie Poussou, lawyer specialist in labor law at Capstan lawyers.

On May 25. 2023, the Paris Court of Appeal estimated that the dismissal of the associate director was devoid of real and serious cause, in particular due to the incomplete nature of the surprising judgment court cassation elements of the investigation for sexual harassment produced during the debates. It also invalidated the day package agreement for lack of effective and regular monitoring of the workload. Finally. she ordered the employer to pay damages to the employee for having refused to transmit his professional emails after his dismissal.

An unprecedented decision of the Court of Cassation – Surprising judgment court cassation

The employer therefore provided for cassation. In its judgment. the Court of Cassation specifies that: “The emails issued or received by the employee thanks to his professional electronic messaging is personal data within the meaning of Article 4 of the GDPR And the employee has the right to access these emails, the employer having to provide him as much the metadata (horoditing, recipients) and their content, unless the heelements whose communication is requestedare of nature To infringe rights and freedomIt is from Autrui. »

“This decision of June 18 will be a surprising judgment court cassation date, believes Stéphanie Poussou. This is the first time that the social chamber of the Court of Cassation has been interested in the question of the right of access. in particular the need to communicate the emails sent and received by the employee ” For the lawyer, “This is a diversion of the right of access to the data devoted in article 15 of the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulations) for probationary purposes ”. This article provides that “The person concerned has the right to obtain from the controller confirmation that personal data concerning them is. is not processed and, when they are, access to said personal data”.

“The judgment of the Court of Cassation goes against the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union. that of the European Data Protection Committee, which guarantee a right of access to personal data but not to documents”, distinguishes lawyer.

surprising judgment court cassation

Requests for access to the upward emails

“Today. requests for the right of access to the mailbox by employees are constantly increasing, because they want to use these messages as evidence. For example to contest a dismissal for serious misconduct. or a day package agreement, based for example on the hours of sending and receiving email to prove that the daily and/or weekly rest time has not been respected and that they must be paid for overtime ”, Develops Stéphanie Soussou.

This unprecedented decision could therefore open the door to a multiplication of this type of litigation. to the risk of seeing the industrial tribunal following the position of the Court of Cassation from the start of the procedure.

“The best way for an employer to warn these risks is to work on conservation durations boxes. build a solid computer charter on the business level. You can. for example, specify surprising judgment court cassation that when an employee leaves the company, his mailbox is deleted within a certain period ”, illustrious Me Poussou.

How to deal with these requests as an employer?

Finally. for any request for the right of access to data, the expert advises to follow the methodology indicated by the CNIL to the letter in a file updated on January 31, 2025: “Faced with bulky requests, the CNIL offers a methodology allowing employers to respond more effectively to employees:

– Establish a summary table mentioning the list of preserved emails where the employee appears as a sender, recipient or cited;

– Invite the employee to specify his request in order to facilitate treatment, emphasizing the workload represented by complete extraction;

– Provide the requested data Depending on the details provided by the employee. »»

“The CNIL recalls that. when emails are affected by a request for access, the metadata (horoditing, surprising judgment court cassation recipient) as well as the personal data contained in these emails must be communicated, provided that it does not affect the rights of third parties. In terms of right of access to data contained in professional emails. respect for the right to privacy, business secrets and correspondence secrecy can sometimes hinder the communication of certain personal data to the applicant ”concludes Stéphanie Poussou.