PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER

( Translation )

In the instant case there clearly was a dispute over a civil right.

As to the meaning to be given to those terms, I refer to my separate opinion in the Rolf Gustafson case [5] .

Mrs Andersson asserted the right to confidentiality of medical data concerning her. That right is not only inherent in everybody's right to respect for his private life; it is also recognised in Swedish legislation [6] .

The psychiatrist's decision to inform the Social Council of the applicant's health problems could, in itself, be regarded as justified in the circumstances of the case. But it should have been – or been able to be – submitted, before being implemented, to review by a court, a procedure which, it should be noted, ought to have been accomplishable very quickly.

Mrs Andersson was not able to secure any such review.

In this respect there was accordingly, in my view, a breach of Article 6 of the Convention in her regard and also of Article 8.

But the applicant did have available to her after the event judicial remedies which satisfied the requirements of Article 6 [7] and therefore also, a fortiori , those of Article 13.

[1] . This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.

[2] Notes by the Registrar

1. The case is numbered 72/1996/691/883. The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

[3] 2. Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply to all cases concerning States bound by Protocol No 9.

[4] 1 . Note by the Registrar . For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.

[5] . Judgment of 1 July 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV.

[6] . See paragraphs 15 and 20 of this judgment.

[7] . See the separate opinions of Mr Ryssdal, Mr Walsh and Mr Casadevall, above, and also paragraphs 52–56 of the Commission's report.