CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 avril 2024

.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 } .sD6845F38 { font-family:Arial; color:#0072bc } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 29 April 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 50037/19 Andrea Celeste TEIXEIRA FERNANDES LOPES against Portugal lodged on 19 September 2019 communicated on 9 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE At the material time, the applicant was working as an Inspector at the Inspectorate General of Working Conditions. The application concerns a request submitted by her on 30 August 2016 to P.B., her hierarchical superior, the Inspector General of Working Conditions, asking to be transferred to the local delegation nearest her residence on grounds of health, family and personal issues. On 16 December 2016 the Inspector General of Working Conditions dismissed the applicant’s request. On 8 August 2017 the Secretary of State for Employment, following a hierarchical appeal by the applicant, revoked the General Inspector’s decision and granted the applicant’s request. On 11 August 2017 the Inspector General of Working Conditions ordered the disclosure of the entire case file to all directors of the Working Conditions Authority and requested that the information be shared with all colleagues in the service. The order was complied with on the same day by the secretariat concerning all Deputy Inspectors Generals and Inspector Directors of the Working Conditions Authority. Some of them forwarded the file to their subordinate inspectors. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against P.B., the Inspector General, for breach of his duty of confidentiality. Upon these proceedings, in January 2018 his secondment as Inspector General was terminated and he was suspended from office without pay for 60 days. In March 2018 he returned to his former position as Inspector of Working Conditions. On 27 March 2019 the Lisbon Court of Appeal dismissed the criminal complaint lodged by the applicant against P.B., to which she had appended a claim for damages, due to a lack of evidence proving his intention to disclose her personal data and interfere in her private life. Under Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that P.B., the Inspector General of Working Conditions, breached her right to privacy and that she was not provided with an effective remedy at domestic level in this respect. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 § 1 of the Convention (see, Paksas v. Lithuani a [GC], no.   34932/04, § 75, ECHR 2011 (extracts)?   The Government are requested to substantiate their response with examples from the domestic case-law demonstrating the effectiveness of the remedy, if any, other than those used by the applicant.   2.     If so, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular:   (a) Did the disclosure of the applicant’s email address and the information concerning her family, personal and health situation to her superiors and colleagues interfere with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life (see, mutatis mutandis , L.B. v. Hungary [GC], no. 36345/16, §§   103-104, 9   March 2023; and Bărbulescu v. Romania [GC], no. 61496/08, §§   70-71, 5   September 2017?   (b) Did the domestic courts fail to secure to the applicant the enjoyment of a right enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention (see, L.B. v. Hungary , cited above, §§   118- 123; I. v. Finland , no. 20511/03, §§ 35-38, 17 July 2008; and   Surikov v.Ukraine , no. 42788/06, § 75 and §§ 90-94, 26 January 2017)?   In this connection, having regard to the State’s positive obligations under Article   8 of the Convention, did the competent national authorities strike a fair balance between the competing interests at stake?