Information Note on the Court’s case-law 45

August-September 2002

M.G. v. the United Kingdom - 39393/98

Judgment 24.9.2002 [Section II]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Access to records: violation

Facts : During his childhood, the applicant spent several periods in the care of the social services department of the local authority. He had contact with his parents during that time. In 1995 he reques ted access to the authority’s files and, in particular, requested specific information as to whether he had been on the “risk register” and whether his father had ever been investigated or convicted for crimes against children. Summary information and cert ain documents were disclosed to him but he requested full access to his records, since he suspected that he had been abused as a child and was considering the possibility of suing the authority. The authority replied that the records had been created prior to entry into force of the Access to Personal Files Act 1987.

Law : Article 8 – The records, containing the principal source of information about significant periods of the applicant’s formative years, related to his private and family life. It was not sug gested that the manner or breadth of disclosure was not in accordance with domestic law. The applicant had a strong interest in obtaining the documents (cf. Gaskin judgment, Series A no. 160) but had no statutory right of access to the records or any clear indication by way of a binding circular or legislation of the grounds on which he could request access or contest the refusal of access. Most importantly, he had no appeal against a refusal of access to any independent body. In that respect, there had bee n a failure to fulfil the positive obligation to protect the applicant’s private and family life in respect of access when he first requested it. Since entry into force of the Data Protection Act 1998, he has had access to an independent authority but, sin ce he has not used the appeal process, it has not been demonstrated that there has been a failure of the State to fulfil a positive obligation since then.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – The Court made an award in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes