DISSENTING OPINION OF MR. C.A. NØRGAARD,

          MRS. G.H. THUNE, MM. J. MUCHA AND D. SVÁBY

     We have voted in favour of finding a violation of Article 8 for

the following reasons:

     The information disclosed in the present case was of a highly

private and sensitive nature and the applicant wished, for this reason,

that it be kept secret. Although the information has not been made

public but has only been made available to a certain number of people

at the Social Insurance Office, we consider that the disclosure

constituted a serious interference with the applicant's private life.

Such an interference can only be justified by strong reasons.

     As is evident from the Social Insurance Office's request to the

women's clinic on 25 March 1992, the Office was aware, apparently from

information supplied by the applicant, that she had consulted the

clinic on 9 October 1981 and that there existed medical records

concerning the treatment received that day. Under Chapter 8, Section

6 of the Insurance Act, the applicant was obliged to provide the Office

with information of importance. In fact, the Office asked the applicant

to supplement her compensation claim, which she did on 11 May 1992. It

was thus possible for the Office to request the applicant to submit

copies of the medical records from October 1981. If it had found that

information to be insufficient, it could have required the applicant

to submit further information at the risk of her claim being rejected.

It could also have asked the clinic or the applicant whether further

information was available, which it then could have obtained from the

clinic with the applicant's consent or required the applicant to

submit.

     It is argued by the Government that the submission of information

in the present case served to protect the economic well-being of the

country and the rights of others as the Social Insurance Office would

have to pay out compensation to almost every claimant, if, in

determining compensation claims, it were to depend entirely on evidence

either submitted by the claimants or obtained with their consent.

     We consider, however, that medical records generally contain

private and sensitive information and that there might be strong and

justified reasons for the individual concerned to object to the

disclosure of such information. Thus, notwithstanding the need for the

Social Insurance Office to have correct and complete information for

the determination of the applicant's claim, these considerations called

for the authorities involved - the Office and the women's clinic - to

take every precaution to ensure that the invasion of the applicant's

privacy was reduced to a minimum.

     We recall that the Social Insurance Office had several

alternative means at its disposal for obtaining the information

necessary for the determination of the applicant's claim. Moreover, in

the event the applicant had refused the Office access to certain

information which it considered necessary for that determination, it

could have rejected the claim. We cannot find that the protection of

the legitimate aims invoked by the Government required that the Office

obtained information directly from the women's clinic without the

applicant's knowledge or that it would have been forced to grant the

applicant's claim had it not chosen this course of action.

     Even if the measures taken in the present case were to be

considered justified for the protection of the said aims, we find that

there were insufficient procedural safeguards to protect the

applicant's interests. In particular, neither the Office nor the clinic

consulted or notified the applicant regarding the request and the

subsequent submission of information. She was accordingly not in a

position to object or agree to the clinic's submission of the medical

records. We do not find it reasonable that, following the applicant's

claim for compensation under the Insurance Act, measures which affected

the determination of that claim and the respect for the applicant's

private life were taken without the applicant having been involved in

any way.

                                                 (Or. English)