Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 164
June 2013
Avilkina and Others v. Russia - 1585/09
Judgment 6.6.2013 [Section I]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for private life
Unjustified disclosure of confidential medical data relating to refusal by Jehovah’s Witnesses to undergo a blood transfusion: violation

Facts – Following several complaints against a religious organisation, in 2007 a St Petersburg Deputy City Prosecutor asked that all medical institutions report every refusal of a blood transfusion by Jehovah’s Witnesses. When the second applicant underwent chemotherapy in a public hospital following a non-blood management treatment plan, her doctors informed the prosecutor’s office of her case. Likewise, the fourth applicant’s medical records were disclosed to a prosecutor’s office after she refused the use of foreign blood for surgical treatment in a state hospital. In subsequent court proceedings, the domestic courts found the disclosure of the applicant’s medical data to have been lawful.
Law – Article 8: Recalling that the protection of personal data, including medical information, was of fundamental importance to the enjoyment of the right to respect for private life, the Court acknowledged that the interests of a patient and the community as a whole in protecting the confidentiality of medical data might be outweighed by the interests of investigating crime and in the publicity of court proceedings. The competent national authorities also enjoyed a margin of appreciation in this area, whose scope depended on the nature and seriousness of the interests at stake and the gravity of the interference. However, the applicants were not suspects or accused in any criminal proceedings and the prosecutor was merely conducting an investigation into the activities of a religious organisation in response to complaints received by his office. Nor did the medical facilities where the applicants underwent treatment report any instances of alleged criminal behaviour on the part of the applicants. In particular, it had been open to the medical professionals providing treatment to the second applicant, who was two years old at the material time, to apply for judicial authorisation for a blood transfusion had they believed her to be in a life-threatening situation. Likewise, there was nothing to suggest that the fourth applicant’s refusal of a blood transfusion was the result of pressure by other adherents of her religious beliefs and not the expression of her true will. There was consequently no pressing social need for requesting the disclosure of the confidential medical information concerning the applicants. In fact, there were other options available to the prosecutor to follow up on the complaints he had received, such as trying to obtain the applicants’ consent for the disclosure of their medical data or questioning them about the matter. Despite this, the prosecutor had chosen to order the disclosure of their confidential medical information without giving the applicants any notice or opportunity to object or appeal.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 5,000 each to the second and fourth applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes