| Applicant name | OG AND OTHERS |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 11 |
| Country | Greece |
| Application no. | 71555/12 48256/13 |
| Date | 23/01/2024 |
| Judges | Father Pastor Vilanova , President , Jolien Schukking, Yonko Grozev, Darian Pavli, Peter Roosma, Ioannis Ktistakis, Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | No legal basis; not necessary |
| Type of privacy | Bodily Privacy; Informational Privacy; Procedural Privacy |
| Keywords | HIV; Prostitutes; Blood Test; Publication |
| Facts of the case | The applicants complain that their consent was not obtained prior to the blood test to which they were required to submit. The applicants complain about the publication, pursuant to orders issued by the public prosecutor, of personal data concerning them, including sensitive medical data, and they maintain that this measure infringed Article 8 of the Convention. |
| Analysis | With respect to the taking of blood tests, the Court finds that there was no adequate legal basis. As to the processing of personal data, the Court finds that such as prescribed by law and served a legitimate interest, namely to protect the rights and freedoms of others. As to the necessity of the interference, the Court notes that the names and photographs of the applicants and the information that they were HIV-positive were uploaded to the police website and subsequently disseminated by the media. The prosecutor did not consider other, less intrusive means. The Court stresses that if the domestic authorities were seeking to protect public health and, in particular, that of individuals who had had relations with the applicants at any time, there is nothing to indicate that the above-mentioned measure would not have achieved the aim sought, while having less impact on the private lives of the applicants. Furthermore, the applicants could not legally be heard by the prosecutor before he ruled on the disclosure of their data, nor could they, once the order had been made, appeal against it for the purposes of its review by the prosecutor at the Court of Appeal. |
| Other Article violation? | No need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaints raised under Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention |
| Damage awarded | that the respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 20,000 to each of the applicants named in numbers 1 and 6 of application no . 71555/12 and EUR 15,000 to each of the applicants named in numbers 2 and 7 of application no . 71555/12 , plus any tax that may be chargeable on this sum, in respect of non-pecuniary damage ; |
| Documents | Judgment |