CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 septembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 20 September 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 53962/19 F.F. against Germany lodged on 9 October 2019 communicated on 3 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal by the socio-psychiatric services to delete a memo and its follow-up comment from the applicant’s administrative file and the alleged failure of the State to comply with its obligations under Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that his right to respect for his private life has been violated, as the socio-psychiatric services secretly collected his medical data, stored them with his administrative file for more than ten years and refused to delete a memo dating from 2002, containing details of a conversation between the service and one of the applicant’s neighbours on his mental health (and especially behavioural disorders displayed by him), even after the submission of later testimony by the neighbour that he had never made these statements. The domestic courts which confirmed the decision not to delete the memo, because the file could only be destroyed as a whole, allegedly failed to balance adequately the competing rights and interests at hand.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant invoke before the national authorities, at least in substance, the right on which he now relies before the Court?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? In particular, have the domestic courts sufficiently balanced the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the Convention with the competing rights and interests at stake?