CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 octobre 2006

.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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 90 October 2006 L.L. v. France - 7508/02 Judgment 10.10.2006 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Reproduction in a divorce decree of extract from a personal medical document: violation Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Applicant’s decision not to pursue divorce proceedings in the Court of Cassation after rejection of his application for legal aid: preliminary objection (non-exhaustion) dismissed Facts : In proceedings for the applicant’s divorce, the judge referred to a confidential medical document, namely the correspondence between the applicant’s doctor and a specialist, containing a report on an operation performed on the applicant. The appeal judge quoted passages from the report in his decision. The divorce was granted on the grounds of fault by the applicant. The applicant requested legal aid with a view to appealing on points of law; when his request was refused, he did not pursue the appeal. Law : The applicant’s request for legal aid had been refused on account of the absence of serious grounds for appealing against the impugned decision. The Court found that the applicant had been justified in not pursuing the case before the Court of Cassation following that refusal: preliminary objection (non-exhaustion) dismissed . Respect for the applicant’s private life (reproduction of the extract from the medical document): The proceedings between the parties to a divorce were not public and the decision binding on third parties contained only the operative provisions; however, any one could obtain a copy of the grounds for the decision without having to demonstrate that they had an interest. The medical document had been used by the judge only on a secondary basis and he could have reached the same conclusion without it. The interference in the applicant’s private life had not been justified in view of the fundamental importance of protecting personal data. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – Non-pecuniary damage: finding of a violation sufficient. For further details see Press Release no. 574.   © 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