## Facts

- An anonymized Finnish mother was HIV-positive and had a child with a former partner.
- After the relationship ended, Finnish authorities and courts handled child-protection, custody, and access disputes concerning the child.
- During those proceedings, the mother’s HIV status and related medical information were introduced and circulated within the process, including to persons involved in the custody/child-protection dispute.
- The mother alleged her sensitive medical information was disclosed more widely than necessary for deciding the child’s welfare and the custody/access questions.
- Finnish law provided for confidentiality of medical and social-welfare information and governed access to documents in administrative and judicial proceedings, but the mother argued the safeguards were ineffective in practice.
- After pursuing domestic remedies, she applied to the European Court of Human Rights, primarily alleging a violation of Article 8 (private and family life) based on the handling of her medical data.

## Issues

1. Whether disclosure and use of an individual’s HIV-related medical information in custody/child-protection proceedings is an interference with the right to respect for private life under Article 8.
2. If so, whether the interference was lawful, pursued legitimate aims (including protecting the child and proper administration of justice), and was necessary and proportionate with adequate safeguards.
3. Whether the custody/child-protection outcomes, insofar as influenced by the mother’s health status, violated Article 8 protection of family life.

## Decision

- The court found an Article 8 violation concerning the manner and scope of disclosure of the applicant’s HIV-related medical information in the domestic proceedings.
- The court accepted that the interference had a basis in domestic law and pursued legitimate aims tied to the child’s welfare and the administration of justice.
- The court held the disclosure was disproportionate because dissemination was not shown to be strictly necessary and the system lacked sufficient safeguards limiting access on a need-to-know basis.
- The court did not find a separate Article 8 violation based solely on the substantive custody/child-protection determinations, giving the state a margin of appreciation in child-welfare assessments.
- The court awarded just satisfaction, including non-pecuniary damages and costs and expenses (amounts not specified here).

## Legal Principles

- Medical information, and especially health data, falls within “private life” under Article 8; state collection, use, or disclosure of such data is an interference requiring justification under Article 8(2).
- HIV-related status is highly sensitive medical data that demands heightened protection because disclosure can carry serious social consequences.
- Even where disclosure pursues legitimate aims in family or child-protection proceedings, the state must limit dissemination of sensitive medical data to what is strictly necessary and to those with a genuine need to know.
- Article 8 may impose positive obligations to structure procedures and document-access rules so that confidentiality is effectively protected, including through practical safeguards (e.g., restricted access or other measures reducing unnecessary spread of sensitive details).
- In custody and child-protection matters, states have a margin of appreciation in balancing parental interests and the child’s best interests, but that discretion does not excuse inadequate protection of confidential medical data.

## Conclusion

Finland violated Article 8 because the domestic custody/child-protection process did not sufficiently confine disclosure of the applicant’s HIV status to what was strictly necessary or provide effective safeguards against unnecessary dissemination, even though the underlying child-welfare decisions themselves were not found to breach Article 8.


C. v. Fin., 46 Eur. H.R. Rep. 24 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2008)