Information Note on the Court’s case-law 183
March 2015
Y v. Turkey (dec.) - 648/10
Decision 17.2.2015 [Section II]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Disclosure to hospital medical services of patient’s HIV positive status: inadmissible
Facts – In February 2008 the applicant was taken to hospital by ambulance in an unconscious state. The ambulance crew, informed by his family that he was HIV-positive, passed on this information to the hospital staff.
In May 2008 the applicant filed a complaint with the public prosecutor against the medical staff of the hospital working in the emergency and intensive care units. He argued among other things that the information concerning his state of health had breached his right to the secrecy of his private life and had constituted an unlawful disclosure of medical data.
He was unsuccessful in his administrative and judicial complaints.
Law – Article 8: The information concerning the applicant’s HIV-positive status fell within his private life, given that it was of a personal and sensitive nature, directly concerning his health.
The applicant had not himself informed the hospital to which he was admitted that he was HIV-positive. His family had informed the ambulance crew, who in turn had told the hospital’s medical and administrative staff.
Turkish domestic law guaranteed the right to respect for private life and the confidentiality of medical information, penalising any breach of that principle. Moreover, medical secrecy was not binding on doctors alone, but also more generally anyone who, on account of their position or profession, received information on the health of a patient.
In the circumstances of the present case, having regard to the documents in the file and the applicant’s state of unconsciousness when he was admitted to hospital, there was nothing to suggest that the dissemination of the information in question had not been justified by the applicant’s strict interest in terms of diagnosis or treatment to be provided, or on needs related to the safety of the hospital staff. Accordingly, the sharing of information concerning the applicant’s HIV-positive status between the various members of the medical personnel could not be regarded as breaching his right to respect for his private life. In addition, there was no evidence to show that individuals not involved in his medical care had been informed of his HIV-positive status.
Moreover, the applicant had asked the administrative courts to ensure the confidentiality of the proceedings. It could be seen from the decisions of those courts that they had not ruled on that request. Each of those decisions mentioned the applicant’s name. Only the decision of the Administrative Court declining jurisdiction mentioned that he was HIV-positive. But there was nothing to suggest that this decision had been published or publicised or that it had been accessible to the public. Accordingly, the indication of the applicant’s HIV-positive status in that decision alone could not in itself be capable of breaching his right to respect for his private life.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy