CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 mai 2020

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 240 May 2020 P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova - 1122/12 Judgment 26.5.2020 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Unnecessary disclosure of sensitive medical data in certificate to be produced in various situations: violation Facts – The applicant needed either a military service book or an exemption certificate for many administrative reasons including obtaining a driving licence and applying for a job. He obtained an exemption certificate on medical grounds which, by referring to other published standards, allowed the identification of the type of illness from which he suffered (HIV). Law – Article 8: The inclusion of medical data in a certificate which was to be presented to third parties constituted an interference with the applicant’s rights protected under Article 8. The interference was in accordance with the domestic law at the relevant time. However, neither the Government in their submissions nor the authorities in their decisions had referred to any specific legitimate aim of the interference with the applicant’s rights. Moreover, the parties had not made any submissions concerning the legislative history of the relevant Government decision so as to verify whether a legitimate aim could be discovered there. It was not the Court’s task to identify such an aim in the authorities’ place. In fact, it could hardly see what legitimate aim could have been pursued by revealing the applicant’s illness to third persons in various situations which were unconnected to any health risks the applicant’s illness might possibly entail. The policy did not appear to have a rational basis or connection to any of the legitimate aims foreseen in Article 8 § 2. The above was sufficient to find a violation of Article 8. However, as the interference in the present case also raised a serious issue of proportionality to any possible legitimate aim, the Court decided to examine that aspect as well. The manner in which personal medical data in an exemption certificate was protected from unnecessary disclosure was deficient. In particular, it allowed third parties to find out the type of illness which had served as a basis for exempting the applicant from military service, even if they had no ostensible interest in having access to that information. The fact that the relevant section   of the Medical Standards, which the applicant’s certificate referred to,   provided for a number of various serious illnesses and not only HIV, did not change the effect on the applicant, in so far as all those illnesses constituted sensitive medical data, the disclosure of which seriously affected a person’s rights under Article 8. The Government had not submitted any explanation of the need to include such a degree of sensitive medical details in a certificate which could be requested in a variety of situations where the applicant’s medical condition was of no apparent relevance. Accordingly, the interference with the applicant’s right had been disproportionate. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See also Surikov v. Ukraine , 42788/06 , 26   January 2017)   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes