After having undergone the procedure of medically assisted procreation out of the region, a Madam asked to the Direction of the Health District of Cosenza/Savuto the refund of costs incurred. Granted the refund, during the same day the health structure published the deliberation on the court notice bord, by making public personal data of the patient relative to pathologies of the same and treatments realized. The married couple appealed to the Court by complaining to have been victims of pain and suffers, to the married life and relation, the name, the image and the honor.
The Health Company in Cosenza (A.S.P.) complained to have obscured the Madame personal data within 24 hours from the publication and to have not mention pathologies and treatments carried out but only an acronym and the indication of the piece of legislation.
The court decisions – with the lean and directive measure the Court recognizes the request of refund of non-patrimonial damages. (sentence of the 3rd of April 2021 – Cosenza Court).
On the contrary of what has been objected by the defendant, it was considerate pacific that the deliberation integrally published, even for few hours, included “sensitive data about names and pathologies and health procedures realized for the medically assisted procreation out of the region, as well as banks data” of the husband bank account. In this way the Health Company has revealed to subjects which are not required being informed on health, sexual life and health procedures to which the madame has been submitted, by sharing them in a illegitimate way and so by breaching confidentiality and privacy obligations, in default both of a legal provision and of a relevant public interest to their diffusion.
Established the privacy damage, sufferance, the caused stress and the incidence of everyday life, the Court mentioned the article 1223 c.c. (indexed compensation of the damage), by explicating the analogy which the crime in question and established that the lack was made by the “diminution or the deprivation of a value, even if not patrimonial, of the human being to which the refund shall be proportionated”. It condemned the defendant to the refund of the damage, ex article 2059 c.c., even for an amount which was minor compared to what has been initially asked.
The precedents – The case concerns a lot that dealt with by the provision Personal Data Processing Authority number 213 of 12th April 2018, doc. web number 8576011. The Authority intervened by preventing a municipal administration from continuing to publish online, in its judicial register, decisions concerning the exemption of waste tax in favor of persons with disabling diseases or serious economic hardship. Moreover, the events occurred in the same period of time. In any case, there are many measures by the Authority aimed at penalizing unorthodox behavior of public offices, more concerned with advertising than with minimizing. However, for years now, guidelines have been published on the processing of personal data with regard to transparency and obligations on public administration websites published by measure number 243 of 15th May 2014, doc. web 3488002.
Never so true, simplicity is hard to do.
SOURCE: FEDERPRIVACY