BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF I v. FINLAND
(Application
no. 20511/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
17
July 2008
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of I v. Finland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas
Bratza,
President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
judges,
and Lawrence
Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 24 June 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 20511/03) against the Republic
of Finland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Finnish national (“the applicant”)
on 20 June 2003. The President of the Chamber acceded to the
applicant’s request not to have her name disclosed (Rule 47 §
3 of the Rules of Court).
- The
applicant was represented by Mr S. Heikinheimo, a lawyer practising
in Helsinki. The Finnish Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for
Foreign Affairs.
- The
applicant alleged, in particular, a violation of Article 8 of the
Convention.
- On
19 January 2006 the President of the Fourth Section of the Court
decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under
the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it was
decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as
its admissibility.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1960.
- Between
1989 and 1994 the applicant worked on fixed-term contracts as a nurse
in the polyclinic for eye diseases in a public hospital. From 1987
she paid regular visits to the polyclinic for infectious diseases of
the same hospital, having been diagnosed as HIV-positive.
- Early
in 1992 the applicant began to suspect that her colleagues were aware
of her illness. At that time hospital staff had free access to the
patient register which contained information on patients’
diagnoses and treating doctors. Having confided her suspicions to her
doctor in summer 1992, the hospital’s register was amended so
that henceforth only the treating clinic’s personnel had access
to its patients’ records. The applicant was registered in the
patient register under a false name. Apparently later her identity
was changed once again and she was given a new social security
number.
- In
1995 the applicant changed her job as her temporary contract was not
renewed.
- On
25 November 1996, the applicant complained to the County
Administrative Board (lääninhallitus, länsstyrelsen),
requesting it to examine who had accessed her confidential
patient record. Upon request, the director in charge of the
hospital’s archives filed a statement with the County
Administrative Board, according to which it was not possible to find
out who, if anyone, had accessed the applicant’s patient record
as the data system revealed only the five most recent consultations
(by working unit and not by person) and even this information was
deleted once the file was returned to the archives.
- In
its decision of 20 October 1997 the County Administrative Board held
that:
“Section 12 of the Patient’s Status and
Rights Act (laki potilaan asemasta ja oikeuksista, lag om
patientens ställning och rättigheter) provides that the
health authorities and staff have to comply with the regulations
issued by the Ministry for Social Affairs and Health (sosiaali- ja
terveysministeriö, social- och hälsovårdsministeriet,
“the Ministry”) when preparing and processing patient
records. Pursuant to this section the Ministry has issued, on 25
February 1993, Regulation no. 16/02/93.
In the said Regulation it is noted that patients records
must be prepared having due regard to the secrecy regulations and the
protection obligation and the duty to take care pursuant to the
Personal Files Act (henkilörekisterilaki,
personregisterlagen; Act no. 471/1987). According to the duty to
take care, precaution and good registering practices must be observed
when gathering, depositing, using and delivering data and these must
be done in a manner so as not to infringe unnecessarily the right to
privacy of the registered person or his or her benefits and rights.
The protection obligation means that data in patient records must be
duly protected against unauthorised processing, use, destruction,
amendment and theft (sections 3 and 26 of the Personal Files Act).
In the said Regulation it is also noted that the patient
records must form an entity to ensure that outsiders cannot gain
unauthorised access to them and that, in addition to the said
obligations, in accordance with the Personal Files Act, the purpose
of use of the said data can be taken into account. This way it can be
made sure that requisite patient data are only given to the personnel
participating in the treatment of the patient.
[The applicant] has in her representations alleged that
[X], who is working for [the hospital] has ordered up the case
history of [the applicant’s ex-husband] and that someone else
has ordered up her file or visited the archives and read her file
and/or that of [her son] and that the data have been transmitted to
[Y] and other staff mentioned in [the applicant’s]
representations.
[X] has contested having proceeded erroneously. The
other persons mentioned in [the applicant’s] representations
have contested having had knowledge of the data mentioned therein
concerning [the applicant] and her family.
According to the director in charge of [the hospital’s]
archives it is not possible to retroactively clarify the use of
patient records. The data system reveals only the five most recent
consultations (by working unit and not by person) but this
information is deleted once the file has been returned to the
archives.
Therefore, the County Administrative Board cannot
further rule on whether information contained in the patient records
has been used by or given to an outsider.
Having regard to the foregoing, the County
Administrative Board however finds that the system should record any
consultation of patient files as a safeguard of privacy in order to
ensure that the responsibility for a possible leak of information can
be individualised. For the future, the County Administrative Board
draws the hospital’s attention to the protection obligation and
the duty to take care provided by the Personal Files Act, and
further, to the need to ensure that privacy protection is not put at
risk when processing medical data within the hospital. ...”
- Subsequently,
in March 1998, the hospital’s register was amended in that it
became possible retrospectively to identify any person who had
accessed a patient record.
- On
15 May 2000, the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the
District Health Authority (sairaanhoitopiirin kuntayhtymä,
samkommunen för sjukvårdsdistriktet), which was
responsible for the hospital’s patient register, claiming
non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage for the alleged failure to keep
her patient record confidential.
- On
10 April 2001, the District Court (käräjäoikeus,
tingsrätten), having held an oral hearing, rejected the
action. Having assessed the evidence before it, including five
witness statements, the decision of the County Administrative Board
and a statement of the Data Protection Ombudsman
(tietosuojavaltuutettu, dataombudsmannen), the court did not
find firm evidence that the applicant’s patient record had been
unlawfully consulted.
- The
applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten),
maintaining her claim that the hospital had not complied with the
domestic law, in breach of her right to respect for her private life.
- On
7 March 2002, the Court of Appeal, having held an oral hearing,
considered that the applicant’s testimony about the events,
such as her colleagues’ hints and remarks about her HIV
infection, was reliable and credible. Like the District Court it did
not, however, find firm evidence that her patient record had been
unlawfully consulted. It ordered the applicant to reimburse the
respondent’s legal expenses before the District Court and the
Court of Appeal, amounting to 2,000 euros (EUR) and EUR 3,271.80
plus interest, respectively.
- In
her application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (korkein
oikeus), the applicant claimed inter alia that there had
been a violation of her right to respect for her private life.
- On
23 December 2002 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- The
Finnish Constitution Act (Suomen hallitusmuoto, Regeringsform för
Finland; Act no. 94/1919, as amended by Act no. 969/1995)
was in force until 1 March 2000. Its section 8 corresponded to
Article 10 of the current Finnish Constitution (Suomen
perustuslaki, Finlands grundlag; Act no. 731/1999), which
provides that everyone’s right to private life is guaranteed.
- Until
1 June 1999, the rules governing the use and confidentiality of
personal data were laid down in the Personal Files Act of 1987.
Sections 6 and 7 of the Act prohibited the processing of
sensitive personal data, including information on a person’s
health and medical treatment, except within the health authorities.
Unauthorised disclosure of personal data was prohibited under section
18 and illegal use of disclosed data was prohibited under section 21.
Pursuant to section 26 the data controller had to ensure that
personal data and information contained therein were appropriately
secured against any unlawful processing, use, destruction, amendment
and theft. In this regard, the explanatory report of the Government
Bill (no. 49/1986) for the enactment of the Personal Files Act
stated that the mere existence of legal provisions did not suffice to
guarantee the protection of privacy. In addition, the data controller
had to make sure that data were protected de facto. When
planning the physical protection of the data system regard must be
had to, inter alia, whether the system was manual or
automated. The delicate nature of the information naturally affected
the scope of the protection obligation. Under section 42, the data
controller was liable to compensate pecuniary damage suffered as a
result of the use or disclosure of incorrect personal data or of
unlawful use or disclosure of personal data.
- On
1 June 1999, a new Personal Data Act (henkilötietolaki,
personuppgiftslag; Act no. 523/1999) entered into force. Section
11 of the Act prohibits processing of sensitive personal data.
However, under section 12, health care professionals may process data
relating to a person’s state of health, illness, handicap or
treatment if they are indispensable in his/her treatment. Section 32
provides that the data controller shall carry out the technical and
organisational measures necessary for securing personal data against
unauthorised access, accidental or unlawful destruction,
manipulation, disclosure and transfer as well as against other
unlawful processing. Section 33 lays down a secrecy obligation for
those who have gained knowledge of someone’s personal
circumstances. Under section 47, the data controller is liable to
compensate pecuniary and other damage suffered by the data subject or
another person as a result of the processing of personal data in
violation of the provisions of the Act.
- The
Patient’s Status and Rights Act entered into force on 1 March
1993. Section 12, as in force until 1 August 2000, provided that the
health authorities had to comply with the regulations issued by the
Ministry for Social Affairs and Health (“the Ministry”)
when creating and processing patients’ personal and medical
data.
- According to the Ministry’s Regulation no.
16/02/93, issued on 25 February 1993, a patient’s privacy
had to be secured when creating and processing his/her patient
record. The data controller had to make sure that outsiders could not
gain unauthorised access to sensitive personal data and that only the
personnel treating a patient had access to his/her patient register.
- Section
13 of the Patient’s Status and Rights Act provided that health
care professionals or other persons working in a health care unit
were not allowed to reveal to an outsider (that is a person not
participating in the treatment of the patient) information contained
in the patient documents without the written consent of the patient.
The said section has been amended as of 1 August 2000 (Act no.
653/2000) to the effect that it must be recorded in the data file if
patient records have been revealed as well as the grounds for the
disclosure.
- Further,
the Health Care Professionals Act (laki terveydenhuollon
ammattihenkilöistä, lag om yrkesutbildade personer inom
hälso- och sjukvården; Act no. 559/1994) contains
provisions on the retention of patient documents and their
confidentiality (section 16) and on the obligation of secrecy
(section 17).
- Finally,
the new Electronic Processing of Client Information Act (laki
sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon asiakastietojen sähköisestä
käsittelystä, lag om elektronisk behandling av
klientuppgifter inom social- och hälsovården; Act no.
159/2007) entered into force on 1 July 2007. The aim of this Act is
to further enforce patients’ rights in the context of the
processing of electronic personal data within the social and health
care.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the district health authority had failed in
its duties to establish a register from which her confidential
patient information could not be disclosed.
Article
8 of the Convention reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect
for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public
authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in
the interests of national security, public safety or the economic
well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime,
for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others.”
- The
Government contested that argument.
A. Admissibility
- The Court notes that the application is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The parties’ submissions
- The
applicant submitted that the measures taken by the domestic
authorities to safeguard her right to respect for her private life
had not been sufficient. At the relevant time, at the beginning of
the 1990s, the hospital’s data system was not controlled as
provided in the law. Anyone working in the hospital could have
accessed her patient record as the hospital register retained only
the five most recent users’ identification data (usually not
the users’ names but only their working units). Furthermore,
the data were deleted after the file was returned to the archives. It
was only after the decision of the County Administrative Board of 20
October 1997 that the hospital’s data system was changed.
- In
her view a retrospective control would have been of vital importance.
The data system should have indicated who had accessed her patient
record so as to make it possible to find out whether access had been
lawful. The domestic courts rejected her claim for compensation for
the reason that she could not identify a person who had obtained
information about her illness from her patient record. She was,
however, unable to prove her claims only because the data control
system in the hospital was inadequate at the relevant time.
- The
Government considered that there was no violation of the applicant’s
right within the meaning of Article 8 as the Finnish legislation at
the time guaranteed the secrecy of a person’s health
information and, in principle, all patient information was kept
secret. Only those participating in the patient’s treatment
were entitled to process data concerning him or her.
- Further,
the data controller was obliged to ensure that unauthorised persons
could not see and process personal data. The controller was
responsible for protecting personal data and had as a matter of
strict liability to compensate any damage caused. Furthermore,
although the legislation did not contain any detailed provisions on
the keeping and retention of log-in files, the data controller had a
general legal obligation to control the use of personal data files.
- As
to the instant case, the Government admitted that in the early 1990s
the use of the patient register in the hospital concerned was
controlled by storing the identification data of the five most recent
users of a patient record. Later, in 1998, the management system was
changed so that each consultation of a patient record was logged and
stored.
- The
Government further stressed that a hospital’s system for
recording and retrieving patient information could only be based on
detailed instructions and their observance, the high moral standards
of the personnel, and a statutory secrecy obligation. Relevant
detailed instructions had been drafted at the hospital; the personnel
were allowed to obtain information from the register only for
strictly limited purposes. It would not have been possible for the
hospital to create a system verifying in advance the authenticity of
each request for information as patient records were often needed
urgently and immediately. Finally, the Government pointed out that
the procedural guarantees were fulfilled in that the applicant had
the right to initiate court proceedings in the event of any defective
handling of her patient data.
2. The Court’s assessment
- The
hospital was a public hospital for whose acts the State is
responsible for the purposes of the Convention (see Glass v. the
United Kingdom, no. 61827/00, § 71, ECHR 2004 II).
The processing of information relating to an individual’s
private life comes within the scope of Article 8 § 1
(see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 43,
ECHR 2000 V, Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26
March 1987, Series A no. 116, § 48). Personal
information relating to a patient undoubtedly belongs to his or her
private life. Article 8 is therefore applicable in the instant case.
Indeed, this has not been contested by the parties.
- Although the object of Article 8 is essentially that
of protecting the individual against arbitrary interference by the
public authorities, it does not merely compel the State to abstain
from such interference: in addition to this primarily negative
undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in an
effective respect for private or family life (see Airey v.
Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32,
p. 17, § 32). These obligations may involve the
adoption of measures designed to secure respect for private life even
in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (see
X and Y v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1985,
Series A no. 91, p. 11, § 23; Odièvre v.
France [GC], no. 42326/98, ECHR 2003-III).
- The
Court observes that it has not been contended before it that there
was any deliberate unauthorised disclosure of the applicant’s
medical data such as to constitute an interference with her right to
respect for her private life. Nor has the applicant challenged the
fact of compilation and storage of her medical data. She complains
rather that there was a failure on the part of the hospital to
guarantee the security of her data against unauthorised access, or,
in Convention terms, a breach of the State’s positive
obligation to secure respect for her private life by means of a
system of data protection rules and safeguards. The Court will
examine the case on that basis, having regard in particular to the
fact that in the domestic proceedings the onus was on the applicant
to prove the truth of her assertion.
- The
protection of personal data, in particular 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. The
above considerations are especially valid as regards protection of
the confidentiality of information about a person’s HIV
infection, given the sensitive issues surrounding this disease.
The domestic law must afford appropriate safeguards to prevent
any such communication or disclosure of personal health data as may
be inconsistent with the guarantees in Article 8 of the Convention
(see Z v. Finland, judgment of 25 February 1997,
Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 I, §§
95-96).
- The
Court notes that at the beginning of the 1990s there were general
provisions in Finnish legislation aiming at protecting sensitive
personal data. The Court attaches particular relevance to the
existence and scope of the Personal Files Act of 1987 (see paragraph
19 above). It notes that the data controller had to ensure under
section 26 that personal data were appropriately secured against,
among other things, unlawful access. The data controller also had to
make sure that only the personnel treating a patient had access to
his or her patient record.
- Undoubtedly,
the aim of the provisions was to secure personal data against the
risk of unauthorised access. As noted in Z v. Finland, the
need for sufficient guarantees is particularly important when
processing highly intimate and sensitive data, as in the instant
case, where, in addition, the applicant worked in the same hospital
where she was treated. The strict application of the law would
therefore have constituted a substantial safeguard for the
applicant’s right secured by Article 8 of the Convention,
making it possible, in particular, to police strictly access to an
disclosure of health records.
- However,
the County Administrative Board found that, as regards the hospital
in issue, the impugned health records system was such that it was not
possible to retroactively clarify the use of patient records as it
revealed only the five most recent consultations and that this
information was deleted once the file had been returned to the
archives. Therefore, the County Administrative Board could not
determine whether information contained in the patient records of the
applicant and her family had been given to or accessed by an
unauthorised third person (see paragraph 10 above). This finding was
later upheld by the Court of Appeal following the applicant’s
civil action. The Court for its part would also note that it is not
in dispute that at the material time the prevailing regime in the
hospital allowed for the records to be read also by staff not
directly involved in the applicant’s treatment.
- It
is to be observed that the hospital took ad hoc measures to protect
the applicant against unauthorised disclosure of her sensitive health
information by amending the patient register in summer 1992 so that
only the treating personnel had access to her patient record and the
applicant was registered in the system under a false name and social
security number (see paragraph 7 above). However, these mechanisms
came too late for the applicant.
- The
Court of Appeal found that the applicant’s testimony about the
events, such as her colleagues’ hints and remarks beginning in
1992 about her HIV infection, was reliable and credible. However, it
did not find firm evidence that her patient record had been
unlawfully consulted (see paragraph 15 above).
- The
Court notes that the applicant lost her civil action because she was
unable to prove on the facts a causal connection between the
deficiencies in the access security rules and the dissemination of
information about her medical condition. However, to place such a
burden of proof on the applicant is to overlook the acknowledged
deficiencies in the hospital’s record keeping at the material
time. It is plain that had the hospital provided a greater control
over access to health records by restricting access to health
professionals directly involved in the applicant’s treatment or
by maintaining a log of all persons who had accessed the
applicant’s medical file, the applicant would have been placed
in a less disadvantaged position before the domestic courts. For the
Court, what is decisive is that the records system in place in the
hospital was clearly not in accordance with the legal requirements
contained in section 26 of the Personal Files Act, a fact that was
not given due weight by the domestic courts.
- The
Government have not explained why the guarantees provided by the
domestic law were not observed in the instant hospital. The Court
notes that it was only in 1992, following the applicant’s
suspicions about an information leak, that only the treating clinic’s
personnel had access to her medical records. The Court also observes
that it was only after the applicant’s complaint to the County
Administrative Board that a retrospective control of data access was
established (see paragraph 11 above).
- Consequently,
the applicant’s argument that her medical data were not
adequately secured against unauthorised access at the material time
must be upheld.
- The
Court notes that the mere fact that the domestic legislation provided
the applicant with an opportunity to claim compensation for damages
caused by an alleged unlawful disclosure of personal data was not
sufficient to protect her private life. What is required in this
connection is practical and effective protection to exclude any
possibility of unauthorised access occurring in the first place. Such
protection was not given here.
- The
Court cannot but conclude that at the relevant time the State failed
in its positive obligation under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention
to ensure respect for the applicant’s private life.
- There
has therefore been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 6 AND 13 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained of a violation of Articles 6 and 13 as she, as a
complainant, bore the burden of proof to show that some of her
colleagues had unlawfully accessed her patient records but that she
was unable to obtain evidence about this due to the deficient
safeguards in her data register.
- Having
regard to the finding relating to Article 8, the Court considers that
it is not necessary to examine this aspect of the application (see,
among other authorities, Sallinen and Others v. Finland,
no. 50882/99, § 102, 110, 27 September 2005, Copland,
cited above, §§ 50-51).
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- Under
the head of pecuniary damage the applicant claimed 38,115.53 euros
(EUR) made up of the following sums: EUR 20,000 for loss incurred
following the hospital’s refusal to renew her work contract as
a result of which she had been unemployed during the period 22
September 1993 to 1 June 1995; EUR 5,988.06 for legal costs
which she was ordered to reimburse to the hospital; EUR 446.79 for
the costs of a private detective in order to uncover evidence for the
compensation proceedings; EUR 11,680.67 for economic loss
flowing from the sale of her home since she had to move house due to
the rumours concerning her disease.
Under
the head of non-pecuniary damage she claimed EUR 30,000 for the
distress caused by the need to change her place of work and the fact
that the rumours about her HIV infection had affected her son’s
life.
- The
Government admitted that the hospital’s legal fees less an
execution fee and interest on overdue payment (EUR 216.26 in total),
that is EUR 5,771.80 might be awarded under the head of pecuniary
damage.
As to
non-pecuniary damage, they submitted that only the applicant could be
awarded compensation and that it should not exceed EUR 3,000.
- The
Court does not discern a sufficient causal link between the violation
found and the pecuniary damage alleged save for the hospital’s
actual legal costs of EUR 5,771.80 which the applicant was ordered to
reimburse in the domestic proceedings.
The
Court finds it established that the applicant must have suffered
non-pecuniary damage as a result of the State’s failure to
adequately secure her patient record against the risk of unauthorised
access. It considers that sufficient just satisfaction would not be
provided solely by the finding of a violation and that compensation
has thus to be awarded. Deciding on an equitable basis, it awards the
applicant EUR 8,000 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 15,758.25 for the costs and expenses
incurred before the domestic courts, including EUR 500 for her own
expenses such as telephone and travel costs, and EUR 5,570 for those
incurred before the Court, including EUR 200 for her own expenses
such as those mentioned above.
- The
Government considered that the award should not exceed EUR 12,000
(inclusive of value-added tax).
- The
Court reiterates that an award under this head may be made only in so
far as the costs and expenses were actually and necessarily incurred
in order to avoid, or obtain redress for, the violation found (see,
among other authorities, Hertel v. Switzerland,
judgment of 25 August 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2334, §
63). Furthermore, the Court reiterates that under Article 41 of the
Convention no awards are made in respect of the time or work put into
an application by the applicant as this cannot be regarded as
monetary costs actually incurred by him or her (see Lehtinen v.
Finland (no. 2), no. 41585/98, § 57, 8
June 2006). In the present case, regard being had to the information
in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it
reasonable to award the total sum of EUR 20,000 (inclusive of
value-added tax) for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings
and the proceedings before the Court.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
8 of the Convention;
- Holds that there is no need to examine the
complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts:
(i) EUR
5,771.80 (five thousand seven hundred and seventy-one euros and
eighty cents), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
8,000 (eight thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR
20,000 (twenty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable
to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 July 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
