| Applicant name | a.p. |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | ARMENIA |
| Application no. | 58737/14 |
| Date | 18/06/2024 |
| Judges | Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President, Tim Eicke, Faris Vehabović, Branko Lubarda, Armen Harutyunyan, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, Anne Louise Bormann |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | Not prescribed for by law |
| Type of privacy | Informational privacy |
| Keywords | Publication of private data |
| Facts of the case | The applicant complained that there had been a breach of her right to respect for her private life as a result of the publication on Datalex (including her full name and address) concerning her civil claim for damages. |
| Analysis | The Government argued that there had been no interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life because the published information (including the relevant judicial decisions) had not contained any specific information about the fact that the applicant had been subjected to sexual abuse . However, individuals who lack legal capacity, such as children, are particularly vulnerable; therefore, Article 8 and other provisions of the Convention impose on the State the positive obligation to take into account the particular vulnerability of young persons. Furthermore, the Court has emphasised the particular importance of the protection of the identity of victims of a crime, especially minor victims who have been subjected to violence and sexual abuse. The Court notes that , the domestic courts did not take a decision on the request whereby the applicant – a particularly vulnerable minor due to her disability who had fallen victim of a serious sexual crime – had requested that her civil claim linked to the crime at issue be examined in camera. The Court further notes that at least one of the decisions given within the context of the civil proceedings contained a number of details concerning both the grounds for the applicant’s claim and the criminal case against A.G., a former public official known at the very least at the local level in the given region. Given such circumstances, even though the impugned publication did not explicitly state that the applicant had been subjected to sexual abuse, it would be difficult to argue that, given all those details of the applicant’s claim that it did contain, one could not have been able to at least form the general idea that the applicant (a minor with a disability) had been subjected to some kind of ill-treatment under circumstances that potentially engaged the responsibility of the State. Since no legal basis was cited by the domestic courts either, the Court cannot but hold that the publication of the impugned information on Datalex was not “in accordance with the law” within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. |
| Other Article violation? | 3 and 13 |
| Damage awarded | 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, EUR 32,000 (thirty-two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; |
| Documents | Judgment |