Page 144 - iyi-yonetim-ilkleri

Manual On Good Administration Principles

Case Studies

Case 1: In the Decision dated 29/04/2014 of the European Court of Human
Rights on the L.H./Latvia application no. 52019/07, it was claimed that
the right to respect for private life was violated on the grounds that the
applicant’s personal medical data was obtained by a public institution
without his consent.

The European Court of Human Rights reminded the importance of
protecting medical data in terms of exercising the right to respect for
private life and upon the determination that the applicable legislation did
not clearly show the extent and the way of the discretionary power granted
to the competent authorities, it decided that Article 8 of the Convention
(right to respect for private and family life) was violated in the applicant’s
case. The court specifically emphasised that Latvian Law did not bring any
limitations to the scope of personal data that could be obtained by the
institution in question.
Case 2: In the Decision dated 28/01/2003 of the European Court of Human
Rights on the Peck/United Kingdom application no. 44647/98, the case
involving media coverage of the footage recorded by closed circuit camera
(CCTV) placed in a street and showed the moments while the applicant was
slitting his wrist was examined.
Considering the fact that the applicant’s security was neglected when the
footage was submitted to the media by the municipal council, the Court
ruled that there had been a disproportionate and unfair interference with
the applicant’s private life; therefore, Article 8 of the Convention was
violated. The Court identified that there were neither appropriate nor
sufficient grounds to justify the fact that the municipal council directly
disclosed to the general public some sections of the camera footage
without the applicant’s consent or concealing his identity, or that the
council disclosed the footage to the media without taking any steps to
enable the applicant’s footage to be masked by the media to the extent
possible.

Case 3: In the Decision dated 03/03/2016 of the Constitutional Court on
the application no. 2013/5653, the applicant claimed that he was imposed
a judicial fine as a result of the criminal proceedings against him, news were
published and publications were issued on the website of a media outlet in
the years 1998 and 1999, the news and publications about him continued
to be included in the archive sections of the website of the related media

143