ECHR decision of 26 may 2020 in the case "P. T. v. the Republic of Moldova"(aplication N 1122/12).
in 2012, the applicant was assisted in preparing the aplication. The aplication was subsequently communicated to the Republic of Moldova.
The case successfully considered the aplication of unjustified disclosure of personal medical data in an official certificate to be submitted to various institutions upon request. The case violated the requirements of article 8 of the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The applicant had to obtain a military ID or a certificate of exemption from military service for many administrative reasons, including obtaining a driver's license and registration at work. The applicant received a certificate of exemption from military service for health reasons, from the contents of which, by reference to other published standards, it was possible to identify the applicant's disease (HIV infection).
POINT OF LAW
Regarding compliance with article 8 of the Convention. The inclusion of medical data in a document that had to be presented to third parties was an interference with the applicant's rights guaranteed by article 8 of the Convention. The intervention was in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Moldova in force at the time under review. However, neither in their observations submitted to the European Court of justice, nor in their decisions at the domestic level, did the authorities of the Republic of Moldova indicate any legitimate purpose for interfering with the applicant's rights. Moreover, the parties did not provide any information about the legal history of the relevant decision of the Moldovan authorities in order to check whether it was possible to determine the legitimate purpose from this source. The court's task was not to identify such a legitimate goal in place of the Moldovan authorities. However, it is difficult for the European Court to understand what legitimate purpose the disclosure of the applicant's medical data to third parties could have had in various situations that do not involve any risks to the applicant's health that the illness might have entailed. Such a policy does not appear to have had a reasonable basis or connection with any of the legitimate purposes listed in article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
The above was sufficient to establish a violation of article 8 of the Convention. However, since the interference in the present case also raised a serious question of proportionality in relation to any possible legitimate purpose, the court also decided to consider this aspect of the complaint. The way in which the medical data in the certificate of exemption from military service issued to the applicant was protected from unnecessary disclosure was erroneous. In particular, it allowed third parties to determine the type of illness of the applicant that served as the basis for his release from military service, even if these persons did not have a clear interest in obtaining this information. The fact that the relevant article of Medical standards referred to in the release certificate issued to the applicant contained a list of serious diseases, not just HIV, did not change the effect of this decision on the applicant to the extent that the information about the disease was personal medical information, the disclosure of which seriously violated the applicant's rights guaranteed by article 8 of the Convention. The authorities of the Republic of Moldova did not provide any explanation for the need to include such detailed medical data in the document, which should have been presented in various situations where the applicant's state of health was not clearly important. Consequently, the interference with the applicant's right was disproportionate.
The case violated the requirements of article 8 of the Convention (adopted unanimously).
In the application of article 41 of the Convention. The European Court awarded the applicant 4,000 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.