Search
document

Document text Analytics

W. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Doc ref: 11696/85 • ECHR ID: 001-1283

Document date: December 11, 1986

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

W. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Doc ref: 11696/85 • ECHR ID: 001-1283

Document date: December 11, 1986

Cited paragraphs only

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

11 December 1986, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

G. SPERDUTI

F. ERMACORA

G. JÖRUNDSSON

B. KIERNAN

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

Mrs G.H. THUNE

Mr. F. MARTINEZ

Mr. J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 10 July 1985 by

P.W. against the Federal Republic of Germany and registered on

14 August 1985 under file No. 11696/85;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of

Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the applicant,

may be summarised as follows.

The applicant, born in 1940, is a German national resident in Cologne.

He is a lawyer by profession.

In 1967 during his legal training, the applicant was hospitalised in a mental

institution for a period of five weeks. Following correspondence between his

superior and the institution, several documents concerning his hospitalisation

were enclosed in his personal file.

In 1977 the applicant instituted proceedings against the public body

responsible for the above institution before the Bayreuth

Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht). His respective

applications for an affidavit that third persons had not been informed

about his hospitalisation and for an injunction concerning the future

disclosure of information were finally dismissed by the Bavarian

Administrative Court of Appeal (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) on

21 July 1978. On 18 October 1978 the Federal Administrative Court

(Bundesverwaltungsgericht) did not grant leave to appeal.

In 1980 the applicant requested the Stuttgart Municipal Office to

inform him whether or not his hospitalisation in a mental institution

had been disclosed to third persons. The Municipal Office replied

that its files did not contain any data concerning this

hospitalisation. Consequently, this information could not be imparted

to third persons.

On 24 February 1983 the Stuttgart Administrative Court declared

inadmissible the applicant's request for an injunction that the

Municipal Office be prohibited from imparting information on him. It

held that the applicant had failed to show any danger of disclosure.

It noted that the Office had informed the applicant that it did not

have any personal data concerning his hospitalisation in its files.

There were no reasons to doubt this statement of the Municipal Office.

Moreover, the Court dismissed the applicant's claim for an affidavit

in respect of the Office's statement on that matter. It found that

German general public law did not provide for an affidavit.

The applicant's appeal (Berufung) was dismissed by the Baden

Wurttemberg Administrative Court of Appeal on 1 September 1983. On

28 October 1984 the Federal Administrative Court decided not to grant

leave to appeal.

On 21 May 1985 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesver-

fassungsgericht) dismissed the applicant's constitutional complaint

(Verfassungsbeschwerde) as offering no prospect of success.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention

that he was denied the right to respect for his private life in that

the Stuttgart Municipal Office refused to inform him correctly about

the disclosure of personal data to third persons in general and in his

own case as well as to make a statutory declaration in this respect.

He suspects that in fact his hospitalisation in a mental institution

has been disclosed to third persons, e.g. to employers.

THE LAW

The applicant complains under Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention

that the Stuttgart Municipal Office refused to inform him about its

disclosure of his hospitalisation to third persons and about the

general administrative practice in this respect as well as to depose

an affidavit concerning the information requested.

Article 8 para. 1 (art. 8-1) secures to everyone inter alia the right

to respect for his private life.

The Commission has already held that data protection comes within the

scope of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention and that the

unauthorised disclosure of information on a certain person may

constitute an interference with his right to respect for private life

(No. 9248/81, Dec. 10.10.83, D.R. 34 p. 78).

However, the Commission notes at the outset that neither the

Convention in general nor Article 8 (art. 8) in particular grant a

right that public authorities should provide general information on

the administrative practice in general concerning disclosures of

specific personal data.

In the instant case the Commission will therefore limit its further

examination to the applicant's complaint that the Municipal Office

refused to inform him correctly about its disclosure of his own

personal data and to depose an affidavit on that matter.

In this respect, the Commission notes that the applicant was informed

by the Municipal Office that data concerning his hospitalisation in a

mental institution were not contained in its files and could not,

therefore, be disclosed to third persons. The applicant has not shown

that this statement was incorrect. Moreover, the Stuttgart

Administrative Court, in its judgment of 24 February 1983, saw no

reason to doubt it.

The Commission finds that in these circumstances the applicant's above

complaints do not disclose any appearance of an interference with his

right under Article 8 para. 1 (art. 8-1) to respect for his private

life.

It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the

meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For this reason, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Deputy Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(J. RAYMOND) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant