FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF S.M. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
(Application no. 56353/15)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
6 February 2025
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of S.M. v. the Republic of Moldova,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Gilberto Felici, President,
 Diana Sârcu,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 56353/15) against the Republic of Moldova lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 1 October 2015 by a Moldovan national, S. M. (“the applicant”), who was born in 1976, lives in Chișinău and was represented by Mr V. Rusu, a lawyer practising in Chișinău;
the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention to the Moldovan Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr O. Rotari, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
the information given to the Moldovan Government that the case was assigned to a Committee;
 
Having deliberated in private on 16 January 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the disclosure of confidential medical information about the applicant by his doctor, as well as the forwarding of such data by a Ministry to further State institutions, without the applicant’s consent. The applicant invokes Article 8 of the Convention. 2. B. is a urology doctor employed by the Buiucani Medical Territorial Association (“the MTA”), a State medical institution, and was married to the applicant’s cousin. He previously testified as a witness in the framework of a criminal investigation concerning a property crime of which the applicant was accused. On 2 February 2012 the investigator set up a cross-examination interview (confruntare) simultaneously with B. and the applicant. At the beginning of the interview the investigator asked B. whether he knew the applicant; if so when and in what circumstances they had become acquainted. B. replied that he had known the applicant for about 16 years since he had seen him in the house of his former father-in-law. The applicant’s father had asked B. to treat the applicant and he had treated him for a sexually transmitted disease. He also said that the applicant’s mother called him a thief and a drug abuser and that everyone was careful to prevent the applicant from stealing something from the house. 3. The applicant complained to the Ministry of Health (“the Ministry”), describing the events, notably B.’s statement about the applicant’s sexually transmitted disease. The Ministry forwarded his complaint to the MTA, which forwarded it, in turn, to the health department of the Chișinău municipality (“the HDCM”) and to the National Centre for the Protection of Personal Data (“the Data Protection Centre”). The Data Protection Centre replied on 5 May 2012 that B. had not had the right to disclose medical information about the applicant to the investigator, who had not specifically asked for it and in any event had not provided a justification for the need to obtain details about the applicant’s diagnosis, the investigated offence being of an economic nature. As for the Ministry’s forwarding of the applicant’s complaint which included his personal medical information to other healthcare institutions, the Data Protection Centre found that, in the absence of the applicant’s express consent or of special circumstances requiring the release in accordance with a legal obligation, such information could not be lawfully disseminated to further institutions. 4. The applicant lodged a court action against the Ministry of Health, the MTA and the HDCM, requesting the acknowledgment of the breach of his right not to have sensitive medical information about him disclosed first by B., and then by the Ministry when forwarding his complaint to the MTA and the HDCM. B. was heard as a third party and declared that he had been warned by the investigator of criminal responsibility for making false statements and felt obligated to answer fully all the questions asked. The courts dismissed this action (final decision of 1 April 2015 of the Supreme Court of Justice) since B. had acted as a private individual, not representing the medical institution for which he worked. Moreover, responsibility for breaching individual rights lay with the health service provider, which had not been any of the institutions in the applicant’s case, but had been doctor B. Finally, the medical information about the applicant had to be submitted to the investigating authority in accordance with Section 12 (4)(c) of Law no. 263 (see paragraph 9 below). Since the Ministry could not properly examine the applicant’s complaint without the involvement of the MTA and since he had used the extra-judicial manner of dispute settlement, forwarding his complaint to the MTA had not amounted to an interference with the applicant’s rights. Moreover, when the applicant requested the extra-judicial protection of his rights, he gave his consent for processing his personal data by the relevant institutions. 5. In September 2015 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against B. The investigation against B. was eventually discontinued in March 2017. 6. In separate civil proceedings, the applicant claimed compensation from B. for the moral damage suffered as a result of the disclosure of his personal medical information. On 14 September 2017 the Chișinău District Court rejected the court action, finding that a prosecutor had already discontinued the criminal investigation against B. and that the proceedings ending with the judgment of 1 April 2015 had acquired the power of res judicata. 7. On 20 February 2018 the Chișinău Court of Appeal quashed the part of the lower court’s judgment concerning res judicata, but maintained the part rejecting the court action against B. It found that, having been accused by the applicant in a criminal investigation, B. could not be limited in what he could say about the applicant as a means of defence. Moreover, the materials in the investigation file were confidential, which ensured the observance of the applicant’s right to protection of his personal data. No person involved in the criminal investigation disclosed the information about the applicant’s diagnosis to anyone outside that investigation. In a final decision of 12 September 2018, the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal in cassation. 8. The applicant complained about the disclosure, by his doctor, of sensitive medical data about him to the investigator and the forwarding of his complaint containing personal medical information by the Ministry to two State institutions. Relevant domestic law
9. Under Section 12 of the Law on the rights and responsibilities of the patient (no. 263-XVI, in force since 30 June 2006), all data concerning the identity and state of a patient, results of investigations, diagnosis, treatment and other personal information shall be protected, even after the patient’s death. Such information can only be disclosed with the patient’s explicit consent. Under Section 12 (4)(c), such information can be released to an investigating authority or a court upon their reasoned request in relation to an investigation or court proceedings. Such information can also be released without the patient’s consent to other authorities (law enforcement, medical and epidemiologic ones) in specific circumstances, such as preventing the spread of infectious diseases, investigating crimes, informing a minor’s parents, as well as involving other doctors in the patient’s treatment. In the latter case information is shared only to the extent necessary for the other doctors to take adequate decisions. 10. Under Section 16 of the same law, the extra-judicial protection of the patient’s rights can be carried out, as the case may require, by the Ministry of Health, the territorial health departments, medical, pharmaceutical and sanitary institutions, health insurance organisations, doctors’ associations and other entities established by law. Complaints against these institutions shall be examined on the basis of the legislation in force, including the law on petitioning, and the person shall be informed of the results. Any decision taken can be appealed to the independent professional medical commission created at each institution.

Outcome for Article 8: violation