5. Information about one’s health

Court has also held that the interests of national security and the fight against terrorism prevail over the applicants’ interest in having access to information about them in the Security Police files (Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v. Sweden, § 91)33. While the Court has recognised that, particularly in proceedings related to the operations of state security agencies, there may be legitimate grounds to limit access to certain documents and other materials, it has found this consideration loses much of its validity with respect to lustration proceedings (Turek v. Slovakia, § 115). 205. The law must provide an effective and accessible procedure enabling applicants to have access to any important information concerning them (Yonchev v. Bulgaria, §§ 49-53). In this particular case, the applicant, a police officer, had applied for a position in an international mission, but following two psychological assessments, had been declared unfit for the position in question. He complained that he had been refused access to his personnel file at the Ministry of the Interior, and in particular the assessments, on the grounds that certain documents were classified.

5. Information about one’s health34

206. Respecting the confidentiality of health data is a vital principle in the legal systems of all the Contracting Parties to the Convention (L.L. v. France, §§ 445-45 in the context of divorce proceedings). It is crucial not only to respect the privacy of a patient, but also to preserve his or her confidence in the medical profession and in the health services in general. Without such protection, those in need of medical assistance may be deterred from revealing such information of a personal and intimate nature as may be necessary in order to receive appropriate treatment and, even, from seeking such assistance. They may thereby endanger their own health and, in the case of communicable diseases, that of the community. The domestic law must therefore afford appropriate safeguards to prevent any such communication or disclosure of personal health data as may be inconsistent with the guarantees in Article 8 of the Convention (Z v. Finland, § 95; Mockutė v. Lithuania, §§ 93-94; Kotilainen and Others v. Finland, § 83). 207. The right to privacy and other considerations also apply particularly when it comes to protecting the confidentiality of information relating to HIV, as the disclosure of such information can have devastating consequences for the private and family life of the individual and his or her social and professional situation, including exposure to stigma and possible exclusion (Z v. Finland, § 96; C.C. v. Spain, § 33; Y v. Turkey (dec.), § 68). The interest in protecting the confidentiality of such information will therefore weigh heavily in the balance in determining whether the interference was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Such interference cannot be compatible with Article 8 unless it is justified by an overriding requirement in the public interest (Z v. Finland, § 96; Y v. Turkey (dec.), § 78), in the interest of the applicant himself or in the interest of the safety of hospital staff (ibid., § 77-78). The unnecessary disclosure of sensitive medical data in a certificate, which has to be produced in various situations such as obtaining a driving licence and applying for a job, is disproportionate to any possible legitimate aim (P.T. v. the Republic of Moldova, §§ 31-32). Similarly, the disclosure by State hospitals of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ medical files to the prosecutor’s office following their refusal of a blood transfusion constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life in breach of Article 8 (Avilkina and Others v. Russia, § 54). However, the publication of an article on the mental health status of a psychological expert did not vio-

33 See the Guide on Terrorism. 34 See also the Guide on Data protection.