The case concerns the disclosure of confidential medical information about a Moldovan citizen by his doctor during criminal proceedings, as well as subsequent forwarding of this information by state institutions without the person’s consent.The European Court of Human Rights found two violations of Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private life):1. The doctor (B.) disclosed information about the applicant’s sexually transmitted disease during witness testimony in criminal proceedings, even though this information was not requested by the investigator and was not relevant to the property crime being investigated. The Court found that domestic authorities failed to protect the applicant’s rights by not providing any convincing reason why the doctor could lawfully release such sensitive medical information.2. The Ministry of Health forwarded the applicant’s complaint containing his medical information to other state institutions (MTA and HDCM) without his explicit consent. The Court found this unjustified as the Ministry could have sought input regarding the doctor’s actions without specifying the applicant’s diagnosis.Key legal principles established in the decision:
- Protection of personal medical data is fundamental for enjoying the right to private life
- Medical information can only be disclosed with explicit consent or based on specific legal exceptions
- When examining complaints about medical privacy violations, authorities must provide convincing reasons that outweigh the right to privacy
- Using extra-judicial complaint procedures does not automatically imply consent to share medical information
- State institutions must find ways to process complaints about privacy violations without further violating privacy rights
