CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 octobre 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 123 October 2009 C.C. v. Spain - 1425/06 Judgment 6.10.2009 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for family life Respect for private life Publication of the applicant’s identity in a judgment delivered in relation to his HIV-positive status: violation   Facts – The applicant, who was HIV-positive, was declared permanently and fully unfit for work in 2002 and claimed the corresponding compensation provided for in a life insurance policy taken out in 2000. When the insurance company refused to pay, the applicant brought civil proceedings against it. The applicant’s complete medical record was placed in the case file. Considering this an infringement of his right to respect for his private life, he requested that his identity be removed from the documents in the file and from the judgment, together with all references to HIV, and that the hearing be held in private. The court rejected his requests, and subsequent appeals lodged by the applicant were unsuccessful. Law – Article 8: The impugned measure had constituted an interference by a public authority with the exercise of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life. That interference had been in accordance with the law and sufficiently foreseeable. Its purpose had been to give the other party access to the applicant’s medical record, which was the subject of the proceedings. The court needed access to the information in order to examine the case and rule on the merits. The aim of the contested measure had thus been to protect the rights and freedoms of others and the smooth running of the proceedings. The Court’s task was to establish whether there had been sufficient reasons to justify the divulgation in the domestic court’s judgment of the applicant’s full name and the fact that he was HIV-positive. The court could have limited the divulgation of the applicant’s identity, in conformity with the law, on grounds of public policy and the protection of rights and freedoms. It was also legally possible to restrict access to judgments and court decisions when there was a risk of infringing people’s right to respect for their private life or the guarantee of anonymity. The official in charge of the register would then decide to what extent access to a file should be restricted in the light of the legitimate interest of the person seeking access. The applicant applied for his name to be deleted from the case materials in so far as his health condition was mentioned. It would have sufficed to replace his name by his initials in the documents to which the public had access and in the judgment. That solution would have avoided the subsequent problem of access for parties with an interest in the case file and the text of the judgment (and of defining the “interest” concerned). Even the Spanish Constitutional Court omitted people’s names from certain of its decisions, as did the Strasbourg Court. Having regard to the particular circumstances of the present case, and bearing in mind the need for special protection of the confidentiality of information concerning HIV infection, the divulgation of which can have devastating effects on the private and family lives of those concerned and on their social and professional situation, the publication in the judgment of the applicant’s full name in connection with his state of health had not been justified by any pressing need. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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