AFFAIRE M.D. ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

• Judgment Date: 28 June 2022
• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0628JUD003658417
• Counsel: VAN DEN EYNDE ADROER A.
• Date: 28 June 2022
• Application Number: 36584/17
• Court: Third Section (European Court of Human Rights)
• Respondent State: España
• Applied Rules: 8;8-1;8-2;10;10-1;35;35-1;35-3-a;41

THIRD SECTION

CASE OF M.D. AND OTHERS v. SPAIN

(Application no. 36584/17)

JUDGMENT

Art 8 • Private life • No legal basis justifying police report on group of serving judges who signed a manifesto on the Catalan people’s “right to decide”, consisting of information partially extracted from police ID database • Failure to fulfil positive obligations through insufficient inquiry into leak of data to the press

Art 10 • Freedom of expression • No reprisals for signing the manifesto or chilling effect • Disciplinary proceedings the result of a complaint by a third party and closed without sanctions issued

STRASBOURG

28 June 2022

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of M.D. and Others v. Spain,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Georges Ravarani, President,
Georgios A. Serghides,
María Elósegui,
Darian Pavli,
Peeter Roosma,
Andreas Zünd,
Frédéric Krenc, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 36584/17) against the Kingdom of Spain lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by 20 Spanish nationals (“the applicants”) on 3 May 2017;

the decision to give notice to the Spanish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning Articles 6, 8, and 10 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the decision not to have the applicants’ names disclosed;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 29 March and 31 May 2022,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:

INTRODUCTION

1. The application concerns the applicants’ right to privacy and to protection of their own respective image (Article 8 of the Convention) as well as their right to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the Convention).

THE FACTS

2. The applicants were represented by Mr A. Van Den Eynde Adroer, a lawyer practising in Barcelona.

3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. A. Brezmes Martinez de Villareal, State Counsel.

4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE APPLICANTS

5. The applicants, 20 serving judges and...