(Grand Chamber) The applicant, a consultant psychiatrist, had conducted research with children under undertakings of absolute privacy. Several years later a researcher, for proper reasons, obtained court orders for the disclosure of the data under strict controls. He was not allowed to object because he was said to have no standing. Members of the applicant’s staff destroyed it rather than hand it over, and he was convicted.
Held: His claim failed. The constitutional right of freedom of official information went back over 200 years in Sweden, and a document is official if it is held by and is regarded as having been received or ‘drawn up’ by a public authority. The only complaints found admissible were as to his criminal conviction. As to that, he failed to establish any breach of his right to private life.
As to article 10, the claim amounted to a right of negative expression, which the court declined to exclude as a possibility but had not been established in this case.
The work was carried out in the name of the University, and belonged to it, and amounted to public documents within Swedish law. To allow a right on his behalf to assert control would infringe the University’s own rights in the data.
Nicolas Bratza, P
41723/06, [2012] ECHR 569
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8 10
Human Rights
Citing:
3rd Section judgment – Gillberg v Sweden ECHR 2-Nov-2010
The applicant, professor in adolescent psychiatry had collected assorted data after having given undertakings to the parents of the children as to its absolute privacy. A sociologist had applied for and been given authority for its release by the . .
Cited – Akdivar and Others v Turkey ECHR 16-Sep-1996
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (abuse of process); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 25-1; Violation of P1-1; No . .
Cited – Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v The United Kingdom ECHR 19-Feb-1997
A prosecution for sado-masochist acts was a necessary invasion of privacy to protect health. The Court found no violation where applicants were imprisoned as a result of sado-masochistic activities captured on video tape when police obtained . .
Cited – K And T v Finland ECHR 27-Apr-2000
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings; Costs and expenses . .
Cited – Goc v Turkey ECHR 9-Nov-2000
The applicant had claimed compensation for unlawful detention and mistreatment during that detention; although the proceedings were civil in nature, they were governed by the code of criminal procedure. The applicant was not given an oral hearing . .
Cited – DH v Czech Repiublic ECHR 7-Feb-2006
The claimants, 18 Roma children complained, saying that they had automatically been placed in schools for children with special needs by virtue of their racial origin. . .
Cited – Leander v Sweden ECHR 26-Mar-1987
Mr Leander had been refused employment at a museum located on a naval base, having been assessed as a security risk on the basis of information stored on a register maintained by State security services that had not been disclosed him. Mr Leander . .
Cited – Gaskin v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
The applicant complained of ill-treatment while he was in the care of a local authority and living with foster parents. He sought access to his case records held by the local authority but his request was denied.
Held: The refusal to allow him . .
Cited – Sisojeva And Others v Latvia ECHR 16-Jun-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 34; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses – claim rejected. . .
Cited – Perna v Italy ECHR 25-Jul-2001
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 10; No violation of Art. 6-3-d + 6-1; No violation of Art. 10; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation . .
Cited – Ezelin v France ECHR 26-Apr-1991
The free speech of protesters should not be curtailed simply because of the unlawful behaviour of one or two individuals. The court considered that ‘that the freedom to take part in a peaceful assembly – in this instance a demonstration that had not . .
Cited – Niemietz v Germany ECHR 16-Dec-1992
A lawyer complained that a search of his offices was an interference with his private life.
Held: In construing the term ‘private life’, ‘it would be too restrictive to limit the notion of an ‘inner circle’ in which the individual may live his . .
Cited – Strohal v Austria ECHR 7-Apr-1994
(Commission) ‘the right to freedom of expression by implication also guarantees a ‘negative right’ not to be compelled to express oneself, that is, to remain silent’. Inadmissible . .
Cited – Goodwin v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Mar-1996
An order for a journalist to reveal his source was a breach of his right of free expression: ‘The court recalls that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and that the safeguards to be afforded to . .
Cited – Goc v Turkey ECHR 9-Nov-2000
The applicant had claimed compensation for unlawful detention and mistreatment during that detention; although the proceedings were civil in nature, they were governed by the code of criminal procedure. The applicant was not given an oral hearing . .
Cited by:
Cited – Vinter And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Jul-2013
(Grand Chamber) The three appellants had each been convicted of exceptionally serious murders, and been sentenced to mandatory life sentences, but with provision that they could not be eligible for early release, making them whole life terms. They . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2021; Ref: scu.471310