CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 11 décembre 1986

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 11 December 1986, the following members being present:                       MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                         G. SPERDUTI                         F. ERMACORA                         G. JÖRUNDSSON                         B. KIERNAN                         A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                         J.C. SOYER                         H.G. SCHERMERS                         H. DANELIUS                         G. BATLINER                    Mrs   G.H. THUNE                    Mr. F. MARTINEZ                      Mr. J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to the Commission     Having regard to Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;   Having regard to the application introduced on 10 July 1985 by P.W. against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on 14 August 1985 under file No. 11696/85;   Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.   The applicant, born in 1940, is a German national resident in Cologne. He is a lawyer by profession.   In 1967 during his legal training, the applicant was hospitalised in a mental institution for a period of five weeks. Following correspondence between his superior and the institution, several documents concerning his hospitalisation were enclosed in his personal file.   In 1977 the applicant instituted proceedings against the public body responsible for the above institution before the Bayreuth Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht).   His respective applications for an affidavit that third persons had not been informed about his hospitalisation and for an injunction concerning the future disclosure of information were finally dismissed by the Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) on 21 July 1978.   On 18 October 1978 the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) did not grant leave to appeal.   In 1980 the applicant requested the Stuttgart Municipal Office to inform him whether or not his hospitalisation in a mental institution had been disclosed to third persons.   The Municipal Office replied that its files did not contain any data concerning this hospitalisation.   Consequently, this information could not be imparted to third persons.   On 24 February 1983 the Stuttgart Administrative Court declared inadmissible the applicant's request for an injunction that the Municipal Office be prohibited from imparting information on him. It held that the applicant had failed to show any danger of disclosure. It noted that the Office had informed the applicant that it did not have any personal data concerning his hospitalisation in its files. There were no reasons to doubt this statement of the Municipal Office. Moreover, the Court dismissed the applicant's claim for an affidavit in respect of the Office's statement on that matter. It found that German general public law did not provide for an affidavit.   The applicant's appeal (Berufung) was dismissed by the Baden Wurttemberg Administrative Court of Appeal on 1 September 1983.   On 28 October 1984 the Federal Administrative Court decided not to grant leave to appeal.   On 21 May 1985 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesver- fassungsgericht) dismissed the applicant's constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) as offering no prospect of success.   COMPLAINTS   The applicant complains under Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention that he was denied the right to respect for his private life in that the Stuttgart Municipal Office refused to inform him correctly about the disclosure of personal data to third persons in general and in his own case as well as to make a statutory declaration in this respect. He suspects that in fact his hospitalisation in a mental institution has been disclosed to third persons, e.g. to employers.   THE LAW   The applicant complains under Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention that the Stuttgart Municipal Office refused to inform him about its disclosure of his hospitalisation to third persons and about the general administrative practice in this respect as well as to depose an affidavit concerning the information requested.   Article 8 para. 1 (art. 8-1) secures to everyone inter alia the right to respect for his private life.   The Commission has already held that data protection comes within the scope of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention and that the unauthorised disclosure of information on a certain person may constitute an interference with his right to respect for private life (No. 9248/81, Dec. 10.10.83, D.R. 34 p. 78).   However, the Commission notes at the outset that neither the Convention in general nor Article 8 (art. 8) in particular grant a right that public authorities should provide general information on the administrative practice in general concerning disclosures of specific personal data.   In the instant case the Commission will therefore limit its further examination to the applicant's complaint that the Municipal Office refused to inform him correctly about its disclosure of his own personal data and to depose an affidavit on that matter.   In this respect, the Commission notes that the applicant was informed by the Municipal Office that data concerning his hospitalisation in a mental institution were not contained in its files and could not, therefore, be disclosed to third persons.   The applicant has not shown that this statement was incorrect.   Moreover, the Stuttgart Administrative Court, in its judgment of 24 February 1983, saw no reason to doubt it.   The Commission finds that in these circumstances the applicant's above complaints do not disclose any appearance of an interference with his right under Article 8 para. 1 (art. 8-1) to respect for his private life.   It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.   For this reason, the Commission   DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Deputy Secretary to the Commission        President of the Commission       (J. RAYMOND)                                 (C.A. NØRGAARD)