case law of the european court of human rights concerning the ...

It was therefore necessary to examine whether the United Kingdom, in handling the applicant's
requests for access to his case records, was in breach of a positive obligation flowing from Article 8 of
the Convention.
[paragraphs 38 and 41 of the judgment]
4. According to the Government, the proper operation of the child-care service depended on
information supplied by professional persons and bodies, and others. If the confidentiality of these
contributors were not respected, their co-operation would be lost and this would have a detrimental
effect on the child-care service. There was no blanket refusal of access to case records. Access was
given to confidential information in so far as the consent of the contributor could be obtained.
[paragraphs 44 and 48 of the judgment]
5. According to the applicant, however, the Access to Personal Files Act 1987 and regulations made
thereunder illustrated the extent to which information of the kind sought by him would in the future
be made available by public authorities. The Government pointed out that the new regulations would
not apply to records compiled before the entry into force of the regulations (April 1989).
[paragraph 45 of the judgment]
6. The local authority obtained consent in respect of 65 out of some 352 documents, and those were
released. The Government argued that no obligation to do more than this existed.
[paragraph 47 of the judgment]
7.In the Court's opinion, however, persons in the applicant's situation have a vital interest, protected
by the Convention, in receiving the information necessary to know and understand their childhood
and early development. Although a system, like the British one, which makes access to child-care
records dependent on the contributor's consent, can in principle be considered to be compatible with
the obligations under Article 8, the Court considered that the interests of an individual seeking
access to records relating to his private and family life must be secured when a contributor to the
records either is not available or improperly refuses consent. In such a case, the principle of
proportionality requires that an independent authority decide whether access should be granted.
As no such system was available to Mr Gaskin, the Court held by eleven votes to six that the
procedures followed had failed to secure respect for Mr Gaskin's private and family life as required
by Article 8 of the Convention. There was therefore a breach of that provision.
[paragraph 49 of the judgment and point 1 of the operative provisions]
C. Alleged breach of Article 10
8. The Court unanimously held that Article 10 did not embody an obligation on the Government to
impart the information in question to the individual. There had thus been no interference with Mr
Gaskin's right to receive information as protected by that Article.
[paragraph 52 of the judgment and point 2 of the operative provisions]
29