| Applicant name | X. |
| Applicant type | Natural person |
| Country | Netherlands |
| Decision no. | 8239/78 |
| Date | 04/12/1978 |
| Judges | – |
| Institution | Commission |
| Type | Decision |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Inadmissible |
| Reason | Manifestly ill-founded (rights of others) |
| Type of privacy | Bodily privacy |
| Keywords | Compulsory blood test |
| Facts of the case | Man is suspected of driving under influence and is subjected to a blood test. |
| Analysis | After some doubts, the Commission finds that the bloodtest, even though a minimal intrusion, must be considered an interference with applicant’s privacy life. However, such is prescribed for by law and necessary in a democratic society and serves a leigtimate interest. Which one, however, is as often unclear. The Commission first finds that the law ‘is inspired by the desire and need to protect society and, more particularly, road safety and the health of other people’, which would lead to the conclusion that the law is necessary in light of the prevention of disorder and crime of the protection of health and morals, but the Commission resolves the case by refering to the protection of the rights (and not the freedoms) of others. |
| Documents | Decision |