CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 septembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 4 September 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 79783/13 J.M. and A.T. against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 13 December 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the disclosure of medical data relating to the applicants’ treatment for drug addiction by a public hospital to the police. By a final judgment of 19 April 2013 the Appellate Court dismissed the applicants’ claim against the hospital and the police, finding that the data in question related to the daily prescription of medicaments and the applicants’ identity had been withheld. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the disclosure of their medical records to the police? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Y.Y. v. Russia , no. 40378/06, §§ 52-59, 23 February 2016, Radu v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 50073/07, §§ 27-32, 15 April 2014 and Avilkina and Others v. Russia , no. 1585/09, §§ 44-46, 6 June 2013)?