| Applicant name | OG AND OTHERS |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 11 |
| Country | GREECE |
| Application no. | 71555/12 48256/13 |
| Date | 01/23/2024 |
| Judges | Pere Pastor Vilanova, président, Jolien Schukking, Yonko Grozev, Darian Pavli, Peeter Roosma, Ioannis Ktistakis, Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | Unlawfull; Not necessary (rights and freedoms) |
| Type of privacy | Informational privacy |
| Keywords | Disclosure HIV status |
| Facts of the case | Blood tests imposed on prostitutes in a police station without their prior consent • Interference not provided for by lawDecision of the prosecutor to make public the very sensitive medical data of the HIV-positive interested parties associated with their identity and photos as well as the reason for the criminal proceedings initiated against them • Data downloaded on the police website and by the rest broadcast by the media • Insufficiently justified and disproportionate interference |
| Analysis | Some of the applicants have died after starting the legal procedure. The Court allows the cases to be continued of those whose children have expressed a wish to continue the case. The others, it strikes of the list. It notes that the cases do raise important legal questions of general interest, but that it can deal with those questios through the remaining cases. As to testing the prostitutes for HIV, the Court notes that the legal provisions concern the obligation for persons who prostitute themselves, with or without authorization, to submit to screening tests for certain diseases, including HIV. However, none of them includes any description of the procedure to be followed, nor does any mention of screening carried out by police or judicial authorities, with or without the consent of the persons concerned. The Court notes that they require an order from the prosecutor so that the investigating judge or the police officers can carry out investigative acts, and that this is only the case in the event of immediate danger, which the Government has not invoked in any way and which, moreover, was not the case here. No analysis or even mention of the relevant legal provisions preceded the acts in question. What is more, no precise procedure was applied in this case for the medical intervention which took place in the police premises. Consequently, the Court is of the opinion that this interference was not “ provided for by law ” . The applicants also complained about the publication, pursuant to orders adopted by the prosecutor, of personal data concerning them and in particular sensitive medical data. One applicant’s claim is rejected ratione personae because the domestic authorities had already acknowledged the violation and remedied it. Hence, the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim. As to the other applicantion, the Court court finds that there was an interference, that this was prescribed for by law and served the rights and freedoms of others. However, because of the extremely sensitive nature of the data, the Court feels that the decision was disproportionate. |
| Other Article violation? | No violation Articles 3, 5 and 13 ECHR |
| Damage awarded | hat the respondent State must pay, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 20,000 to each of the applicants designated by the numbers 1 and 6 of application no. 71555/12 and EUR 15,000 to each of the applicants designated by numbers 2 and 7 of application no . 71555/12 , plus any amount that may be due as tax on this sum, for moral damage ; b) that from the expiry of the said period and until payment, these amounts will be increased by simple interest at a rate equal to that of the marginal lending facility of the European Central Bank applicable during this period, increased by three percentage points ; |
| Documents | Judgment |