Information - 1997
Information Law, including Data Protection, Confidence and cinfidentiality, disclosure etc.
The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database.
lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.
This page lists 2 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.
|Z -v- Finland 22009/93; (1997) 25 EHRR 371;;  ECHR 10|
|25 Feb 1997
|Human Rights, Information
|The defendant appealed his conviction for manslaughter and related offences by deliberately subjecting women to the risk of being infected by him with HIV virus. The applicant, Z, had been married to the defendant, and infected by him with HIV. The applicant's doctors were required to give evidence about her medical condition in spite of their, and her, objections to the disclosure of this information, and the police seized her medical records, including laboratory tests and information about her mental state. The police copied these and the Court included them in the case file. Held:The court considered the making of an order for the disclosure of medical records: "In this connection the court will take into account that the protection of personal data, not least medical data, is of fundamental importance to a person's enjoyment of his or her right to respect for private and family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention. Respecting the confidentiality of health data is a vital principle in the legal systems of all the Contracting Parties to the Convention. It is crucial not only to respect the sense of privacy of a patient but also to preserve his or her confidence in the medical profession and in the health services in general. Without such protection those in need of medical assistance may be deterred, when revealing such information of a personal and intimate nature as may be necessary in order to receive the appropriate treatment, from seeking such assistance thereby endangering their own health but, in the case of transmissible diseases, that of the community. The domestic law must therefore afford appropriate safeguards so there may be no such communication or disclosure of personal health data as may be inconsistent with the guarantees of Article 8 of the Convention."|
|Halford -v- The United Kingdom 20605/92;  24 EHRR 523;  ECHR 32;;  ECHR 32|
|25 Jun 1997
|Employment, Information, Human Rights
|The interception of the telephone calls of an employee in a private exchange was a breach of her right of privacy. She had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The police force's surveillances of the applicant's telephone (to obtain information regarding a sex discrimination claim she was pursuing in the employment tribunal) was a "serious infringement of her rights" (article 8 and 13), particularly in the light of the improper use to which the police wished to put the material obtained. The applicant was awarded £10,000 as non-pecuniary damages (even though they rejected her claims that she suffered a stress-related illness as a result of the breach). The interception, being wholly unregulated by statute, was not "in accordance with the law" and was thus an interference with the officer's article 8(1) right not saved by article 8(2).|
|European Convention on Human Rights Art 8|